>> rose: welcome to the program. we begin this evening with ukraine and talk with international diplomat wolfgang ischinger, former ambassador of germany to the united states who has been focusing on the conflict in ukraine. >> this is not something that we should believe is far away, somewhere in eastern europe. it doesn't have to concern us. it has to concern us because it affects the very basis of european security. we thought that we could trust each other. we thought that there was now a degree of predictability in european, in the european security architecture. that belief has been shattered. there is a lot of mistrust now, probably on both sides. and that needs to be rebuilt. that will take a long time. >> rose: we continue with one of my favorite comedians, john oliver.

need i say more. >> it's changing. i think we're gravitating towards attacking things that are difficult. going off to something kind of merits a week's worth of struggle. so you know, things like we've done things on fifa or the death penalty or net neutrality. none of those the things scream that looks funny. that is begging for comic treatment. >> rose: ukraine and john oliver when we continue. >> there's a saying around here: you stand behind what you say. around here, we don't make excuses, we make commitments. and when you can't live up to them, you own up and make it right.

some people think the kind of accountability that thrives on so many streets in this country has gone missing in the places where it's needed most. but i know you'll still find it, when you know where to look. and by bloomberg. a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide. captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> rose: we begin tonight with the news from ukraine a military helicopter was shot down near the russian border on tuesday killing nine people. it came after the agreement to a cease-fire between ukrainian government and pro russian separatists, militaries accusing the rebels of breaking the agreement several times since it began on monday. meanwhile the united states is

hoping to increase pressure on the russian government by escalating existing sanctions. joining me now from washington, wolfgang ischinger, a distinguished scholar at the wilson center and was a german ambassador to the united states. welcome. >> it's great to be back. >> rose: felony what's happen -- tell me what's happening this moment as far as you know on the ground in ukraine. >> it's a challenging situation where you have the ukrainian military on one side and a number of different groups, the coordination of which is unclear to put it diplomatically. so this is not an easy situation for the limitation of the cease-fire. that's the one problem. the other problem or the other side of this coin is that as we speak, before an important sum it meeting of the european union

later this week, diplomatic efforts, of course, are continuing. president putin was in austria yesterday. there are those phoning putin, also yesterday, a lot of diplomatic activity is at least a glimmer of hope that a diplomatic track can be established, and that's some traction can then be created. >> rose: what would a diplomatic solution look like. >> i believe that ukraine needs help. the border between ukraine and russia is an open border. as we all know, from the media for weeks, if not months, men

and ammunition and supplies have somehow come across this particular border. i believe it's relatively clear point to make that if russia intends to respect the integrity of the sovereignty of its neighbor ukraine, russia should do the necessary minimum to control its own border and make sure that nothing leaves russia that's not supposed to leave russia. and armed men or ammunition, arms are not good that should cross that kind of border without the permission of the authorities. so i think we need to continue to put pressure on the russian government to implement their own promises, namely that they would respect the territorial integrity of ukraine and so far they're not doing that. that's our problem. >> rose: what pressure can we apply or can the world apply or

the west apply? >> well charlie, i think you know, so far our behavior, the west, the united states, the european allies hasn't been all that bad. we have managed just for once not to fall apart as we confront this particular crises. i can tell you that when i left kiev a couple weeks ago at the conclusion of my mission, i asked the prime minister of ukraine who was a wonderful man, highly efficient technocratic prime minister who acts under very difficult circumstances. i asked him what is the one thing you want me to carry with me as i go back to berlin and talk to people in washington. and he had a clear answer, came straight back at me and said don't fall apart. stay together. so far i think they managed to

do that and i think we need to stay together, we cannot allow this russian behavior to split the north atlantic alliance, to split the west in terms of continuing the sanctions together. not the united states here and the europeans there. i don't think that would be a good solution. >> rose: it seems to me that's what's happening. i mean you're hearing people like the united states chamber of commerce question the sanctions. >> well, i think that's normal. i could sing a long song about the complaints of our own business community which of course has a much bigger stake in the russia trades than the u.s. business community. our business community doesn't like this a bit because it affects their business in a major way. but they have been smart enough

and i draw my hat. they were smart enough and politically astute enough to say we understand this is a political priority, and therefore we are not going to fight this sanctions decision if it has to happen, it has to happen. and i think that's what we need to expect from the u.s. business community also. >> rose: okay. where is the chancellor on this? >> the chancellor has in my view, and of course i'm not her spokesman now, i'm no longer a german ambassador. i'm not officially in a diplomatic mission here, so i'm free to express my own view. i believe she has carried out the kind of leadership function that everybody is now expecting of germany in these types of situations. she has helped toza1óñ unite the european union. that was not easy, and we'll

continue not to be easy as we consider now the question of continuing and maybe even increasing the sanctions pressure. so i think chancellor merkel has played a central role because she's also one of the few leaders who have been able to continue the lead every many weeks now, speak with president putin, sometimes several times a week. and i think that's important. we must not give up the communications link. this is the most serious challenge to european security in many years. >> rose: do you believe that sanctions will work and sanctions will act as a leverage against russia and russia's support for separatist. >> it's clear to me that the leadership in moscow does not appreciate a development that leads to a reduction or even an elimination of russian influence in and over ukraine. >> rose: right.

>> russian thinking, unfortunately, seems to me is still the kind of old style cold war thinking where they believe they need something between themselves and the west in order to protect themselves because the west has some kind of hostile intentions. which is of course not true. but deceptions are perceptions and i think we need to live with the fact that this is strongly held view in moscow, and we have to live with the unfortunate fact that over the last several months nationalistic sentiments have tended to have a renaissance in russia. as i put myself in the shoes of an advisor to president putin, he's not in an easy situation. if he now were to sort of give up and say okay, you know, i accept this, i accept that

ukraine is moving in the direction of the eu. when i'm going to let that happen. i believe he will be seriously attacked by this new nationalistic right wing conservative nationalistic element in russian politics. so in a way, he has created a problem for himself. >> rose: henry kissinger suggested on this program finland has a model and then wrote about it in his column. is that the model to what ukraine should become. >> well it depends on how you interpret this. i agree if we are very clear what the finland model needs. the finland model must not mean, should not mean that ukraine is not free to choose, you know, which club it wants to belong to. that's a principal we established many years ago in the context of european security. each country should be free to

choose. but the finns chose to become of their own will not to be members of nato many years ago. they decided to pursue a special finnish way. but nothing, there is nothing written neither in the bible nor in the finnish constitution or anywhere else that would in principal prevent finland from becoming a member of nato. finland is of course a member of the european union, so in that sense, if that's what we mean when we speak about the finnish solution, that's okay. some people believe that the finland model means ukraine must not, will not and shall not ever, you know, become a member of this or that. that i would say is not something we should ever say. if the ukrainians want to make

that decision, that's their decision to make. it's their country and it's their future, but we should allow them to have the free choice. >> rose: what do you think of the new president? >> i think the new president has a great opportunity. you know, my own job just before the presidential elections were completed was to help a map of the osce was to helpdnational dd tables. this is not a country with a homogeneous society. there are russians speaking people in the east who disagree violently with what people in the west believe. this president must be a president who brings his country together in the way that, you know, i'm not an historian and i hesitate to make this comparison. americans would probably say this is not correct, but i think of abraham lincoln as a figure who in a war situation then finally brought the country together again and that's the

kind of job he's facing. it's a huge task and i think he can do it because he enjoys the trust of many ukrainians and enjoys the trust of many leaders in the west. and i believe they are willing to talk to him in moscow also. >> rose: how large in a percentage basis are the separatists. >> let me tell you this, charlie. i made an effort during my few weeks there on be half of the osc. i made an effort to talk literally to everybody i was able to meet with. i went to the east, to various other places. i did not meet any significant number of people who were really separatists. in other words, who were willing to pursue a strategy of carving up ukraine, of creating a separate state or uniting one part of ukraine with russia, which is what the self-appointed

separatists proclaim is their objective. in other words, i believe this is an artificial kind of separatism which is being imported and it is not something which the population really wants. i think what the population wants in eastern ukraine is they want a different government in key. they want less corruption and want representation of their own issues and problems in kiev. they want more centrallation, the kind of federallation you have in the united states or what we have in germany, self government. that is something very different from the idea that you know let's take a portion of ukraine and let's proclaim a separate republic. my impression is that not even those who are responsible, who hold responsibility in moscow

believe that that would be a good in the long term and a permanent solution.6artificial g tried. i don't think it has a2l>> roseo ukraine if they don't get the necessary money that they need. >> as i said in the beginning charlie, this is a country that needs almost everything. they need money, they need oil and gas. in other words we need to help them settle the gas issue with russia. they need technical help. this is a country that has a military that is so poorly trained and equipped because they were not well enough funded in the past. this is a country that has a huge corruption problem. so in other words, across the board from the military to the social sector, they will need a lot of help. who is going to give them the help? hopefully the european union

will continue to be the major supporter. the united states has done, has taken very good decisions, and of course very important decisions have been taken by the imf. so i think the conditions for long term and short term help in all these various sectors exist. but what this country also needs now is to be able to focus on these financial economic and social needs on constitutional reform. doing that while you know, artillery blasts and shelling continues in one part of the country. it's not an easy proposition so the first priority has got to be to end the military conflict in the east. >> rose: what's the risk of war. >> i think the risk of miscalculation on both sides is of course significant. this is something that must worry all those of us who know a

little bit about strategy and about crises management and crises prevention. it takes only a little miscalculation for something to flare up. there is lots of military around in this region. there are the russian soldiers on the other side. and it doesn't take much for a little, you know, conflict in a border town to erupt in something larger. so this is not something that we should believe is far away somewhere in eastern europe, it doesn't have to concern us. it has to concern us because it affects the very basis of european security. we thought that we could trust each other. we thought that there was now a degree of predictability in european, in the european security architecture. that belief has been shattered. there is a lot of mistrust now, probably on both sides.

and that needs to be rebuilt. that will take a long time. >> rose: will history suggest that the west missed an early opportunity to form a relationship with ukraine? >> well, i think you know, looking back, of course one can argue that maybe what we did or what we did not do, we the europeans, we the west, we also made mistakes. yes, i'm sure there were mistakes made. some people believe, and i don't necessarily share that view but it is being kicked around these debates, that the eu presented the future relationship between ukraine and the european union as a choice that ukraine had to make between either relationship with the west, with eu or with

russia. today, we're all agreed that that is not a choice before which we should put ukraine. we should allow ukraine of course to continue to have its traditional long-term ties, historic ties, political ties, economic ties with russia, ethnic ties with russia, while developing the economic and the political relationship with the west. that's got to be possible. so maybe there were mistakes made, but, and maybe we did not pay enough attention to this huge country. it is one of the biggest country, if not the biggest country leaving aside russia on the european continent. 50 million people is a huge part of land. maybe we neglected the domestic problems of ukraine for too long, but don't forget, charlie,

since 2008, we in the eu had some other kinds of worries also. we were fighting the spector of a break up of the euro zone, and as you know, that problem is not yet fully resolved. so you know, this was not a great period for outreach from the european union since 2008. >> rose: take me inside putin's brain and tell me what his calculations are. >> well, i wish i knew. and i think that's the big, the really big challenge, the trouble we all have. i've been talking to many here in washington, the state department, my own colleagues in berlin, brussels and elsewhere. i think the mainstream, the majority of the eu is that

president putin is not, you know, a kind of gambler. i think he carefully weighed the risks when he seized crimea. and he believed that the western reaction would be one with which he could live. but he would gain so much from his point of view. so i think he is a smart strategist. he will not step over you know the red line. i don't think he will want to really challenge nato, and nato territory. but we also need to be sure that we sent the right signals, which is why i am a strong believer in the sanctions which we have already adopted, and i believe that if president putin does not follow up with clearly

recognizable deeds, action, the kinds of words and promises he has made, we should notch up our sanctions policy in order to make sure he understands that we will not allow the european peace and stability to be threatened by him. he wishes, and he has said that publicly since 2007, he wishes to create in his way, to recreate a greater russia. and the vision of the eurasian union which he has pursued for quite some time now is a vision that will remain desperately incomplete if it does not include ukraine. which is why i think people are so unhappy in moscow that ukraine is now definitely most definitely on a western, on an

eu course, and drifting away from the influence of russia and from this option of becoming a future member of this eurasian union, which president putin is. our job, i believe, is to make sure that we talk again between the west and president putin about how this situation which is a very unhappy situation for all of us, how this can be changed and transformed again into a situation where we can speak hopefully in a few years, again kind of a future win/win situation. the one thing that i believe is important for me as a european to never to forget is we will have russia as a big neighbor whether we like it or not. we can't, you know, wish them away. they will also be the direct

neighbor of ukraine. so we can't have permanent adversity. we need to find a way to create a stable relationship again, and hopefully president putin will accept the offer that we're now making, that if he respects the rules which we all of us together had established in terms of respecting each other's territory and integrity and sovereignty, then i think peace can be reestablished and mature -- mutual trust will be rebuilt but it will take some time. >> rose: thank you for joining us. >> thank you very much. >> rose: we'll be right back stay with us. john oliver is with us to addition for the daily show, 24 hours after getting the job he was on stage with jon stewart as

the program's senior british correspondent. a three month stint filling in for stuart last summer garnered popular reviews for all jury toistic out on his own and he has. he debuted on hbo and here's what it looks like. >> a couple weeks ago we did a piece on new neutrality and when todd wheeler the chair of the sec which is tasked with radio companies was previously a lobbyist for the cable industry. something of a conflict of interest that we summarized thusly. that is the equivalent of needing a baby-sitter and hiring a dingo. you are probably wondering why i'm playing again now. well on friday the fcc held an open meeting and this happened. >> i'm just wondering if you

watched the john oliver on net neutrality and what you thought about it. >> oh, that is not good. so? what did he think. >> i think that it represents the high level of interest that exists in the topic in the country. and that's good. i would like to state for the record that i'm not a dingo. [laughter] >> rose: last week tonight airs sunday nights at 11:00 pm, i'm pleased to have john oliver back at this table, welcome. >> thank you for having me back. thanks charlie. >> rose: i know tom wheeler by the way, i've known him for 30 years. what you're saying he's

corruptible, is that what you're saying. >> no. all i'm pointing is charlie is the former head of a cable might not be the ideal objective head of the fcc. it's more suggestion than maybe those two worlds. >> rose: maybe he needed experience. you get experience lobbying for the cable companies so you understand. once you understand them you can regulate them. once they have paid you to represent them, then you have the capacity to regulate them. >> there's no conflict of interest. i know exactly who i want in there, someone who doesn't fight me all the time. i can be that person. >> rose: but it was so nice and gentle in his response when you accused him of these egregious act. >> i didn't accuse him of egregious act i accused him of being a baby eating dingo. that's what a dingo does, that's my point. >> rose: help me understand this. you substituted for jon stewart. then you came on this show. >> yes that's true.

>> rose: and you had a sterling performance much like sitting in for jon. right after that you got a big offer from hbo. i'm just asking, i'm asking, sitting in for jon stewart, appearing on my show, a big new show for you. i'm asking. >> that's just the gateway. what you're saying is, what you're saying is you'd like a piece on the back. >> rose: in deed that's what i'm saying. >> give me a taste. double figures. it was weird because i remember sitting down with you, it was the final week. i remember you saying, do you think, is your life going to change now. and i said no. and you looked at me like i was insane. and there was something about your face just going oh, this kid doesn't know. he doesn't know. >> rose: he doesn't get it. >> yes. >> rose: even though how good he is by the way. >> the jury's still very much out. deliberation is going on that jury whether i'm any good or not. >> rose: come on, you're

universally acclaimed as a brilliant comedian. >> wow. you are writing checks to my popularity cannot cash, charlie. i am on a quiet case now. >> rose: so tell me about this experience of creating your own show. here you are, you go there with this phenomenal background as a highly acclaimed comedian who is substituted for the one and only jon stewart. and that's a high praise. you should be given the opportunity. and then to do it so well. >> well yes. that was kind of the apex of my time on the daily show was kind of being in a position where jon would trust me rightly or wrongly being the custodian of his show for a few months. it was an amazing honor. did you think for a moment if i do this well at the end of three months, little john oliver will have his own show. >> no, i didn't think that for a single moment as you can tell from my face during the interview and you're saying what next.

i'm going to go back, everything's going to go back to how it was. so no, there was no point at which i thought the it was going to lead to anything other than hopefully not being in trouble when jon got back. >> rose: how do you like it doing your own show. >> i love it. >> rose: being in charge and responsible for lots of comedy. >> that is, you know, it's a different level because i'm being under his wing, under jon's protective wing. >> rose: it could go to someone else. >> of course. he can take the blows for me. so no, i've had this wonderful position nearly a decade where i've been like snuggled up under his wing. >> rose: and then you're exposed. >> now there are times when i would love to look up and see that wing above me. it's been very, being a boss has been very different. setting stuff up myself has been a challenge. i'm not, i don't, there are kind of basic management skills that do not come naturally for me.

>> rose: you hire people for that. >> well that's what i've learned, yes. >> rose: that's your answer to every question. >> don't worry. you may have a seizure. >> rose: just don't worry about it, you know. you're there for one thing. you're there for one thing, to entertain us and to make us laugh, that's all. >> right, i don't see it that way. i've been raised in the daily show model which is where jon is involved in everything. he is, he is the dna of that show which is why it's so weird to remove the dna. >> rose: i have a theory about this. do you want to hear it. >> sure. i'm not going to say yes yet. i'll say sure. >> rose: every great television show, you know, it comes because it is defined by the presence of someone.

like johnny carson on the tonight show. define night line when it was created and certainly this show. certainly stewart and colbert and they are manical. >> he's one of the big things. >> rose: david letterman for sure. >> one thing that jon says is if you take your foot off the throat of this show it will get up and walk away. he's 100% right about that. and that has been transferable to what i'm dng now. you have to be on it all the time, otherwise you'll look away and look back and what you needed has gone. >> rose: and you have to walk away every day saying that was good but i got to make it better tomorrow. >> of course. you can't be happy. that's why the comedian is so perfect fit for me. >> rose: you can't beat that. >> there's no comedian walking

away saying i'm fully satisfied from that experience. it did not fill the hole, it didn't fill the hole. >> rose: what's the hardest part about this program for you. >> well i don't know. it's all hard at the moment because we haven't really done enough to be in any kind of rhythm. we've done seven shows so we're still working out the process and even the show itself. >> rose: how will you define what you want this show to be. >> i don't know. on a week to week basis it's changing. i think we're gravitating towards attacking things that are difficult. going off to something, kind of merits a week's worth of struggle. so you know, things like we've done things on fifa or the death penalty or net neutrality. none of those things scream that sounds funny. so when you look at them. no one's looking at net neutrality and thinking that is begging for comic treatment. >> rose: you seem to have, to me, and i've known you a couple years kra. >> yes. >> rose: a huge curiosity in the news. >> yes. >> rose: you've come to that

with wow, can you believe that. >> right. >> rose: and you see the contradictions in it. you see the place where i can get in here and make it, irony of it. >> right, that's exactly it. that's it in a nut shell because you're looking for comedic ironies, comedic juxtapositions. with net neutrally there's inherently comedic elements, kind of stupid because you're dealing with something which is incredibly important and incredibly boring. an effect some of the most driven people in the world on-line commenters. so there was an inherit juxtaposition between the fact that no one cares about this and i'll get the people who should care the most about it some of the most poisonous active on-line individuals. >> rose: did it make any difference you're on hbo and therefore you could say whatever you want. >> it's amazing, yes. >> rose: it's amazing you don't have to bleep it. >> there's nothing to bleep,

sure. and look you know a curse word is a violin upon which you can play any tune. but also the content. to do, able to do a long piece about the death penalty or about fifa is amazing because there's no restrictions. they'll let you do anything. >> rose: fifa just begs to be satire doesn't it. >> it's basically ancient rome in a current sports organization. >> rose: that's what you got to find. >> you're looking at caligula. we're talking about functional rome, we're talking about the guy appointing horses as senators. that's what you're dealing with fifa. the whole thing it's a mess it's like a circus. >> rose: i want you to see this clip. here it is. >> i would like to talk to you about the sausage principal. the theory that says if you love something never find out how it was made. well tonight, i would like to

show you my sausage. this is my sausage. >> 2014 fifa world cup. >> okay, the world cup starts this week and i am both excited and extremely conflicted about it. now i know in america soccer is something you pick your ten year old daughter up from. but for me and everyone else on earth, it's a little more important. >> soccer had become religion. >> in columbia, soccer is a religion. >> it's a religion here. >> soccer or football like we say, it's a religion. >> and they're not exaggerating. when david beckham response of no soccer fans was that's huge for jesus. that's a big deal for him. the world cup is one of my favorite things, but it's

organized by these guys. fifa. you know it as the federal internationallal de football organization or that soccer game you have. but for american viewers who may never have encountered them, fifa is comedically grotesque organization. you do it mainly so you can watch the horrified expression on people's faces. >> rose: i think that was lovely but sausage is such a cheap shot. look at my sausage. >> you're chumming the water. it's a little resonate just to get everyone's attention. >> rose: and david beckham makes jesus look good. >> he does. david beckham is in many ways a religion figure. i met him once and i felt like i met god in a way and i probably dealt with even worse than if i

met the living christ. >> rose: i never had the pleasure. >> he is perfect. he's the achilles' hill. the problem is he likes a voice like he's inhaled helium. that's the one thing. >> rose: are you serious. >> i swear to you. you'll say david it's great to meet you. lovely to meet you too. lovely to meet you charlie. david do close your mouth and just look asconce profile. like this. without moving it, it's awful. >> rose: other than comedy, what do you want your show to be? >> basically nothing. it's a comedy show so it has to be that. >> rose: we want to go one step beyond comedy. >> if it's interesting that's

fun as well. if it's comedy about some interesting things. >> rose: how about an insight into something, a way of looking at it that you hadn't thought about. >> sure, why not. >> rose: the idea of hiring the guy who represented the cable company. >> exactly. like you were saying there are inherent comic juxtapositions throughout that story. so you want to highlight those with comedy especially with that is boring, the most important story of the monologue which is too boring to care about. >> rose: what is the biggest story for you. you got the world cup and the ukraine. >> we did the election. there was nothing more interesting about the indian election to me. >> rose: nothing not interesting. it's the largest democracy in the world. >> it's the biggest expression of democracy in the history of earth. >> rose: if that's not a story nothing is. if you can't find something interesting in the largest democracy in the history of the world. >> yes. and you have your eyes closed.

>> rose: you're in the wrong place. >> yes. that election was astonishing. and you know, in a country that is you know riddled with class you have a deeply controversial figure who used to sell tea at a railway station. there's nothing that was not amazing about that election to me. and it was covered so spectacularly over there. that's when you realized cable news has become an airborne disease and thus made it to india. >> rose: it's true. now you had general alexander on your show too. >> yes. >> rose: i ran the nsa. >> running the most furtherance period, yes. >> rose: most active around the world. >> when they were certainly, that's right, defending it most rigorously he would say. >> rose: and you could say by the would i you probably don't know, oh we know. you probably don't know i'm a

britt. oh no we know. you didn't know that my mother's sister. >> before i e-mailed the questions to our producer and there was a moment when i was filling in the subject line i've written general alexander questions and there was a moment i caught myself going, is this, should i do that. should i call it something else, like menu for tomorrow. it's weird how it plays with your mind. >> rose: interviewing skills. i mean that's one of the things you've had to develop first with jon and thenñlwith this show. >> yes. two speeds i think. i think there's two different kind of like i interviewed on this week's show we had steven hawking as a guess. >> rose: i've done the same thing so i can't wait to compare notes. >> i wanted to speak to him for a multitude of reasons. one is he's a fascinating guy. he's very funny he has a great sense of humor and he is obviously wrongly defined by his disability. and it is the least interesting part of him as a man.

you just, most people when they think of him they think well that guy in the chair with the iconic voice. and that's not right. there's a personnity in there. there's not much left of his body. >> rose: here's the difficulty when you go see him. i did this four or five years ago went up to cambridge. you have to submit the questions because he needs time. >> right. and it's actually gotten worse over the last few years because he is really slowed down. his physical limitations are worse than ever. >> rose: so how did you meet the challenge with interviewing steven hawking. >> we e-mailed back and forth expevment mailed some of the bigger questions that would take more involved response. and then i said in asking him to do the interview i would like this to be funny. i know that you got a good sense of humor. so then i might ask you this on the back of it, that's a dumb question you can get me. so then he would come up with a slam. and that, that was really fun to

watch because he's not, he's -- >> rose: you know you have him then he's engaged in the game if he'll do that. >> yes. the difficult thing in approaching that in a comedic context that interview is that his face cannot, is not very expressive anymore. he really only has one working muscle there now. so i was concerned about showing that he was involved in having fun in the game and there was one moment when i knew he was about to get me where i swear you could see his face light up because he knew he had it already and was going to drop it on me and it was awesome, it was just awesome. >> rose: you could see it though. >> you can see it. >> rose: he was ready. >> yes, he was ready, he knew exactly. that's the amazing thing because long gone are the days where he's pushing anything. he can just blink so he's triggering it with a blink and he knew and he got me and he knew he got me.

>> rose: why was he so interesting for you. >> because i think again i'm not, i don't know what his -- to the point even at one point i was in his office and i was quite close to the blackboard and my shoulder brushed it and he did run over, whoa whoa whoa whoa. >> rose: you just erased the theory of the world. >> exactly. it looked like scribbles. i wanted to get to the fact that there was a human being in there whose mind is incredibly agile who has a personality that's nt just about his work and there's not much to get at because there's not much physically left. but i wanted to try and show the man inside this incredibly difficult situation because he's funnybge and i wanted him to be funny and he was, i think. >> rose: one of the great things about having a she -- a show like i do and like you do

is you get up in the morning saying how do i want to define it. the reason i like you so much is there's a:xk curiosity about te world behind you beyond finding humor in the world i live this. do you then have to take it to the next step and say but can i make it funny. can i find the irony in it. >> yes, exactly. you're right. there's natural, places where you naturally think this person is incredibly fashion -- fascinating but to the extent you can make it interesting in a different way. you don't want to be too abrasive. even with steven hawking you can come across as bullying. >> rose: patronizing. >> people fantallize them all the time and he's smarter than everyone so there's no need to do that. you can show he can stick up for

himself. in other interviews there's definitely times where you need to work out where irony is useful and where it can be a problem. i did a piece in about unesco and it was, this was for the daily show. and i was worried about how irony would work in a classroom that was about to get shot down full of kids in west africa. you worry about whether irony in that room will work. you know it will afterwards. as it happened it was fine. but that would be an example of the time where you worry i need to be careful here. >> rose: if you wanted something on your show would you pick up the phone and call jon and say i have an idea or do contracts about how the world works. >> i don't know. probably we could do that. yes, he's been amazing. >> rose: on your show at some point if you wanted to.

>> oh sure. i speak to him at least on e-mail probably once a week and just to ask him about something. >> rose: but you said that you live with the idea i don't want to disappoint jon. >> yes. still, he's still my high water mark. so i always, i don't want to let him down. i didn't want to let him down when i was sitting in his job but i still don't want to let him down now. he's still the benchmark for me. >> rose: why did you become a comedian? >> because i had no place else to go, charlie. >> rose: is that right. >> pretty much. >> rose: no, it's not. >> it's pretty close. >> rose: when did you know. >> it was when i realized, i think, you know, i wanted like as a kid i wanted to be a football, i wanted to be like david beckham in every way. my voice is too low, we know that now. >> rose: exactly. >> then i love comedy and i started doing it at college and i loved doing it so much that i

realized i was going to have to give it ago. and then i kind of started struggled and i was a few years in, and; is that right -- >> rose: this is post college. >> post college. i was sustaining myself but still not a dignified life but still counts. >> rose: what is sustaining myself but not a dignified life. >> you can't afford orange juice with pulp in it. >> rose: orange juice in a can. >> no, squash, english like sconce trait -- concentrate with water on top. you've been too successful -- no, and so i've done that for years. i remember my dad saying to me, i really admire that you never gave up. it never even occurred to me to give up. it never was an option.

it was chilly. i remember going up stairs thinking hold on shied have given up. i realize it's too late now. i somewhere no transferable skills. if this doesn't work it's a disaster. it's his conversation i really admire that you stuck with this. >> rose: the other side of that is people, they stick it out and they never think about not doing anything else and they believe somehow some way they can't quite figure out but they believe it. once they've done it and they look back and they say oh my god i would never do that again. if i had known it was that hard i wouldn't have done it. when you're doing it you don't think about that. >> right. there was especially with stand up. jon and i talked about this a bunch. it's almost self selecting because it's so miserable starting off as a stand up. you're humiliated going into places you're not required. the destroys personal

relationships. you can't afford orange juice with pulp in it. there's no up side other than the fact you have to do it. if there's any reasonyou will f. so it kind of self selects people that are just so -- >> rose: people will make a way not to make it and accept not making it. >> you still want to go back. there's an amazing episode of louie from the first season and he gets the night off and he gets a baby-sitter and he tries to go off with some friends and it doesn't work, it doesn't work at all. and he's not happy and he doesn't feel like he fits in. and so he walks home and he walks past a terrible comedy, basement comedy club and he says, like there are six tourists and a couple lit wayneians and he's not doing well but he's really enjoying

himself and he goes home and he goes out for an early breakfast at a diner and that to me hits home so hard because i'm normally the most comfortable in some of the most disgusting places. i remember my wife's parents coming to see me once on the stage in a grimy stand up club and they were kind of saying, mentioning -- >> rose: this is a very american family too. >> yes. i think they were just thinking why do you, this doesn't seem, it doesn't smell nice but the carpet sticking to your feet. >> rose: why were you doing this. >> this is where i'm happiest. and i could see the sentence you're going to bring my daughter into this world. i feel unclean. the grease of onion rings in the air. >> rose: when did you know you had sort of had some degree of success so it had all paid off. i'm not saying you had made it, i'm just saying you had a degree

of success. >> that's a good way of putting it and i think there might be a single moment actually because i think there's this guy -- >> rose: oh yes. >> he employed me to write on his show during a bi-election in england. i made him laugh and he was quite a defining figure during my childhood all the comedy he made. and i remember thinking, after it was a proper laugh not kind of a friendly laugh he really laughed hard and i remember thinking i think i'm good now. i think this is the house of money from now on. there was a legitimacy in thinking so i wasn't crazy to want to do this. he found something i said funny. so at this point on i can't really complain about anything. so that was probably the point where i thought i'm okay now. >> rose: then how did you get hired by the daily show. >> they were looking for someone because they were about to lose -- well they were looking, they were about to lose a couple

correspondents. they were going to the office and rob was leaving for sit com. so they needed someone and they threw the net a little bit wider and i think ricky gervais, i didn't know him. >> rose: he recommended you even though you did not know him. >> yes. i think he knew the kind of things i was writing in league so i think he said to jon you should take a look at this guy and then it happened very fast. >> rose: there is within the club of comedians who is doing what well. >> there are comedians you have not seen before. actually there's this guy, i'm not sure, i think he just started on the daily show. i remember seeing him very early, michael chase. he's really good. he's a really good stand up. i remember seeing him a few years ago doing stand up and it was that feeling of going oh wow you are going to be great,. >> rose: you can see it. >> yes. >> rose: much success to you. >> thanks charlie. >> rose: it's great to have you on this program. i hope you will come back.

>> whatever. >> rose: john oliver. thanks for joining us. see you next time. captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org

>> announcer: explore new worlds and new ideas through programs like this, made available for everyone through contributions like you.bs station from viewers thank you. >> dr. tanzi: simply put, you need to realize that you are not your brain. that's right. you are not your brain. you are the user of your brain. your brain serves you. you shouldn't be serving it. >> announcer: dr. rudy tanzi is a professor of neurology at harvard university and director of the genetics and aging research unit at massachusetts general hospital. >> dr. tanzi: you need to become the master of your brain. you need to balance all three parts of your brain so that they