Skip to main content

tv   The Daily Show With Jon Stewart  Comedy Central  April 4, 2013 1:00am-1:30am PDT

1:00 am
- you are welcome here. you're safe now. we've lived here for generation after generatione - ha, we made it, hope. - ladies and gentlemen, miss angelina jolie!and ge - hello, everyone! hello! captioning by captionmax www.captionmax.comossibl >> from comedy central's world news headquarters in new york, this is "the daily show" with jon stewart. ["daily show" theme song playing] [cheers and applause] captioning sponsored by comedy central
1:01 am
>> jon: welcome to "the daily show". my name is jon stewart. good program tonight. we've got a great one. our dweft tonight is an author and the facebook coo sheryl sandberg. she has a new look "lean in." the study of body language strategies. i'll be doing this. [ laughter ] meanwhile great news from washington. congress recently passed and president obama signed a continuing resolution to fund the government all the way through september. [cheers and applause] our government -- our government is no longer living month to month. we're now living six 340s to six months. [laughter] what is not to like about that? >> buried deep within the pages of that bill is a controversial piece of legislation that would keep the federal government from banning the sale of genetically modified foods.
1:02 am
>> jon: what the -- wait -- what? who is responsible for that senator popping j. cornarms? [laughter] i want you guys to all be ready for this next one and let me apologize in advance. you know he is a retired kernel. [laughter] [cheers and applause] it's okay, i'll let myself out. it doesn't keep the federal government from banning the genetically modified foods but if there's a court challenge or injunction on the selling of foods, the department of agriculture has to allow a company like montsanto, if they want, to continue selling the crop. the repealing soybeans, your meat carrot, your tomato that will throw itself at bad
1:03 am
entertainment. [ laughter ] let's at least hear some of congress's no doubt robust discussion on this controversial amendment. >> critics are angry but how it was passed. snuck into a huge agricultural bill without review by a committee. [ laughter ] >> jon: someone just attached this language protecting genetically modified food makers into a bigger unrelated bill like the same way if you wanted to buy a particularly nasty porno you might slip it under some -- let me get some mountain dew and fall her's almanac and maybe to throw everyone off the scent what are those fleet enemas? i'll take those and protections for the agra business. put it in a bag. how does congress let this happen? >> the law passed bout most of
1:04 am
congress even knowing about it. [laughter] >> jon: congress didn't know about a law they themselves passed? so congress is now operating with the same level of self awareness as a flatulent grandpa. what? what? where is everybody going? [laughter] what is that? if only one lawmaker had called out the so called monsanto amendment publicly, brought it to the attention of the other lawmakers sairk a senator from montana john tester. >> the second provision sent over from the house tells the usda to ignore any judicial ruling regarding the planting of genetically modified crops. they are giveaways pure and simple. they deserve no place in this bill. we have to do a better job on policy and process.
1:05 am
>> jon: i see the problem here: the other legislators didn't know about it because senator tester brought it up on the senate floor in front of all of them. perhaps if he had written it in the memo field of a monsanto lobbyist check people would have seen it. [ laughter ] [cheers and applause] anything else in the bill nobody knew about? >> tucked away in the continuing resolution are hidden items on guns making permanent some of the restrictions on the federal government's ability to regulate guns. >> jon: it's great to see congress is making progress on the issue of gun control control s. [laughter] just out of curiosity given that senators can hold pieces of slaition and filibuster appointos -- appointees and this is the general law making body. >> i believe the senate ought to slow things down. >> we need more debate in a way that doesn't rush it. >> slow down the process and work it through.
1:06 am
>> americans want us to take our time and get things right. >> jon: yeah. [ laughter ] that's (bleep) we need. why couldn't anyone prevent the weird amendments from happening? >> they said if they wanted to keep the government from shutting down they needed to get this through. there was no take it out. >> jon: right because this was a redz liewtion that kept it funded for six months. it had to go through. now that you haute the amendments versus what we need. in the report infrastructure repair. sunday report, anything. we would have taken anything. after hearing this you may be thinking to yourself jon i'm not completely angry and upset. may i? [laughter] are you curious about the sneaky bastards doing the dirty work of the agra business lobby? it turns out it was slipped into the legislation anonymously [audience reacts] ooooh says the
1:07 am
audience. [ laughter ] it turns out members of congress involved in writing a bill while the bill is in subcommittee are allowed to add any provision they want anonymously, no fingerprints. the laws of the most powerful nation on earth are written with the same level of accountability as internet comments. no, no, that's not fair, internet comments have an ip address and they are relatively traceable. none of this would be surprising if we paid closer attention on saturday mornings growing up. ♪ i'm only a bill and i'm sitting here on capitol hill ♪ >> i'm just a bill i don't want any trouble. monsanto. that's exit only fella! ow! congratulations now you are a
1:08 am
law. >> democracy hurts my ass. ,x
1:09 am
1:10 am
>> you might recall two weeks ago the republican party had a big announcement to make. >> we have to be more inclusive.
1:11 am
we can be true to our principles without being disrespectful to those that don't agree with 100% of them. as president reagan our 80% is not our 20% enemy. >> jon: a 25% enemy, however they can go (bleep). [ laughter ] still though, kudos to the republican party. [ laughter ] they saw that they had an outreach and an inclusion problem and it has been a jesus moment or a hay-sus moment. they figure we have to reach out to latinos but here is what the rebranding is up against. not two weeks after the announcement of this new strategy this: >> alaska congressman don young seems to be in full back pedal mode after using a slur to describe migrant workers. he was talking about how technology was effecting the economy when he made this
1:12 am
comment. >> we used to hire 50 to 60 wetbacks on my father's ranch and pick tomatoes. >> jon: they prefer wetback americans. [ laughter ] wow. what is going on here? are the republicans under the impression that you can shoot the moon electorally? like somehow if you alienate every latino, you get all the votes? like what possible excuse could this guy have for what he said. >> young tried to explain why he had used the word wetback. i use aid term commonly used during my days growing you on a farm in central california. >> jon: and then i fell asleep and woke up a couple of days ago. [ laughter ] frozen in time along with my core opinions and beliefs. what has changed?
1:13 am
[laughter] a bit of a setback for the outreach to latinos thing. what about gay votes? two republicans came out in support of gay marriage that has to give them something. until ben carson spoke. >> no group be they gapes, nambla, be they people who believe in bestiality they don't get to change the definition. >> jon: i'm going to stop you right there. you are a smart man, a neurosurgeon. you get that one of those things is not like the other. gay people are not like nambla or bestiality. it's like saying i believe the law grants the same rights to all of us whether we be christian or rapists. it's nothing to do with anything.
1:14 am
[cheers and applause] the doctor's apology, don't make it no better. >> i wasn't equating the things. i don't think they are equal. if you asked me for an apple and i gave you an orange, would you say it's not an orange and i say here is a banana and here say peach. that's not an apple either. it doesn't mean i'm equating the banana and the orange and the peach. [ laughter ] [cheers and applause] >> jon: first of all when you are apologizing to gay people stay away from fruit analogies. [ laughter ] and second, you are explanation doesn't make any sense either while apples and ban in in -- bs are not the exact same thing they are all all items in the same aisle of the grocery store or refrigerator door unlike gay people and pedophiles and horse
1:15 am
(bleep)s. [ laughter ] guys, it's not that hard. talk about gun control this one did it right. >> guy had this discussion for wonderful caring democrats this week. they said surely you could agree to limit the number of rounds in a magazine, couldn't you? i mean how would that be problematic? well, once you make it ten, then, why would you draw the line at ten? what is wrong with nine or learn? >> jon: now, okay, obviously the argument itself is silly but -- drawing lines and setting limits it's a job. it's what you do. it's like going once we set the voting age at 18 what is wrong with 17 or five? you know -- >> the problem is once you draw that limit it's kind of like marriage when you say it's not a man and a woman anymore, then
1:16 am
why not have three men and one woman or four women and one man and why not if somebody has a love for an animal. [cheers and applause] [laughter] >> jon: aside from the fact you are justifying not limiting one thing by showing the need to limit another thing what is it with you people and the animal (bleep). i don't understand how your mind goes there. then they remove the laws of (bleep) animals. is that the only thing holding you back because i don't have a -- wow, look at that goat. if only i wouldn't get in trouble. like it's not -- [cheers and applause] hitting you here -- didn't you hear what republican governor bobby jindal said this year? >> we've got to stop being the stupid party. >> jon: yes, exactly.
1:17 am
[cheers and applause] now that guy is an up and comer. that is the kind of inclusive smart moderate tone that is going to take this republican party into the 21st or late 20th century. jindal how are things for that cat? >> a statewide poll released today shows governor jindal's popularity is in a political tail spin. >> his approval rating has sunk to 38%.
1:18 am
1:19 am
1:20 am
1:21 am
>> jon: welcome back. my guest tonight she's the coo of facebook. her new book is called "lean in women, work and the will to lead." please welcome to the program sheryl sandberg. hello. [cheers and applause] >> thank you for having me. [cheers and applause] >> jon: how are you? >> i'm great, thank you for having me. great to be here. >> stephen: i'm delighted you are here. the book is called "lean in." you are the coo of facebook. >> correct. >> jon: curiosity for my sake, what do you do with people at work messing around on facebook? >> we encourage it. >> jon: it is -- it's not like get to work. you are like oh, yeah! you can do that all day.
1:22 am
>> all day. all day. we use it. yeah, if you want to apply -- >> jon: i don't have a thing. i don't have an account because i don't -- i'm not -- i don't like the poking people. believe me i have an aol disk i put in. my modem makes noise. [ laughter ] the book -- listen, you've written a book about women's role in the workplace. you must have known when you open up that discussion it opens you up to a great deal of shall we say spirited commentary back. >> i knew that. >> jon: has that surprised you? >> no. this is about who we are as individuals, who we are as parents, workers as colleagues. it's personal for me, too. i'm grateful for that debate because i wrote "lean in"
1:23 am
because i'm worried that the blunt truth is men still run the world and i'm not sure that's going that well. [cheers and applause] >> jon: i don't -- [cheers and applause] honestly, i have nothing to do with it. [ laughter ] but you would -- since the 70s women have -- i mean women graduate higher education more than men. they've certainly achieved a great deal more in the working world than they have. do you feel like the barriers are still there or that there's a discussion going on evening amongst women that there's an ambivalence there as well? >> since the 1970's women have made more and more progress at every level except at the top. women have had 14% of the top jobs in america for ten years. there's a plateau. there's a stagnation.
1:24 am
we're held back by lots of things, sexism, discrimination and terrible public policy. we're also held back by the stereotype. go to a playground this weekend and you'll hear little girls called bossy. you won't hear little boys called bossy because we expect them. rather than call little girls bossy we should say my daughter has executive leadership skills. [laughter] >> jon: may i ask you: is there anything we can do about what they call us? >> yes, there is actually. because the message is that men need to lean in, too. >> jon: i meant our kids. >> what your kids call you? >> jon: yes. >> no, that's out of my realm. >> jon: if a guy wrote this book about men. it wouldn't get heated. women get judged on a much stricter basis for everything
1:25 am
they do. would you agree with that? i feel like no matter what women put out there it becomes drkt woman who put out her book on raising kids she became known as the tiger mom. something else. she took way more flack than if a man put out a similar book. why do you think women are judge judged more hashy? >> the stereotypes run deep and smart in childhood. men should lead, speak up and have opinion. women should nurture, help others and sit back. national retailer printed up t-shirts the boys, smart like daddy, the girls, pretty like mommy. not in the 1950's, two years ago. when men speak out and get more successful they are better liked but women are less liked. i think we can change that.
1:26 am
now is our moment to change that. if we understand the stereotypes and how they are holding us back, they can change. >> jon: how much is access to the halls of power and how much is the ambivalence for women evening amongst themselves because it seemed easier to change the access to power than to change the cultural pressures that women face. i think women face very, very strong cultural pressure. >> huge. i think you have to change both. we haven't changed both. that's where we are where we are. this holds women back. my friend rachael was talking about the book she's five. what if i told you if daddy did better at work everyone likes him more and if mommy does better at work people liked me less well.
1:27 am
she said mommy, i would do less well at work so people will like me. if we all lean in and start applauding girls for leading arc playing women for reaching for ambitious posts we can change this. >> jon: here is the other thing -- [cheers and applause] yeah! stick around for a little bit. the other thing that that woman could do is buy them children's books from now on. >> that would work, too. this is heavy duty for a five-year-old. [laughter] i just recently got out of harry potter series. [laughter] "lean in" it's on the
1:28 am
1:29 am


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on