How Jay Leno Changed the Politics of Late Night



when I started hosting marijuana was illegal and you can smoke cigarettes any place you wanted I believe he did the greatest monologue ever and I think it was because of his political sensibility and the worst thing about losing this job I'm no longer cover NBC I'd have to sign up for Obamacare after 22 years as the host of The Tonight Show Jay Leno said goodbye to late night though he was no favorite of TV critics Leno held the top ratings spot for over two decades after succeeding the legendary Johnny Carson recent TV sat down with longtime Leno producer Dave Berg author of the book behind the curtain an insider's look at Jay Leno's Tonight Show to discuss lenez legacy of elevating politics and late-night talk Johnny Carson who of course is a legend the greatest there ever was he set the bar very high for all of us however Johnnie emphasized entertainers on his show I'm not saying he didn't have politico's from time to time he did but the emphasis was on entertainers well the strategy that we used to kind of expand and maybe get better ratings was to move beyond entertainers and I think that this is what distinguished Jay not only in the guests that he chose I mean basically we had every major presidential candidate from 1996 on but also in his monologue which he expanded it from Johnnie's with seven minutes and Jay expanded his to 14 minutes and added a lot of political humor he set the pace I believe he did the greatest monologue ever and I think it was because of his political Sensibility you talked about having presidential candidates the you guys were actually the first to get a sitting president when you had President Obama on can you talk a little bit about the story of how that happened five years before he became president I was watching him speak at the Democratic convention in Boston and that was in 2004 Kerry was the the Democratic candidate that year and and I had never heard of this unknown political Illinois and I thought oh my gosh this guy is the best speak I have seen since Ronald Reagan I'm not talking politics here I'm just talking about the ability to communicate and I was very impressed and the next day I started calling on his people to express an interest in getting him on the show now we did finally land him on the show as as an author the the audacity of hope' when he was a presidential candidate so when he did finally agree to appear as a president he had already been on he had already had a trust yet and it kind of a chemistry with Jay but nevertheless when he decided to appear on the show on his 59th day in office that was amazing because no other president had ever appeared on a late-night show it was actually considered unpresidential that was a huge moment and you know looking back at that why do you think it took so long for that to happen I mean do you think that politicians are kind of afraid of going on platforms like that because they're afraid of being made fun of I do and as I always told the political people actually we're much easier I'm not saying Jay didn't ask tough questions he did he certainly did but we weren't Meet the Press and Jays attitude about guests is he believed that that it was a family environment at the Tonight Show and and he actually acted as though guests were like guests in his house so he always said I'm not going to throw you a curve ball you don't have to worry I'm I will ask you a tough question I'll ask you this I'll ask you that but he never never asked gotcha questions so we were actually easier than Meet the Press it never seemed like he was really accepted among you know the comedic elite and here he is now he's going to get the Mark Twain humor award at the Kennedy Center this fall what do you think is so misunderstood about his success I think that the critics the Television Critics basically early on starting when Jay took over from Johnny Carson early on they said this guy doesn't have the chops he doesn't have what Johnny Carson has and by the way he's not cut from the same fabric as David Letterman it is so much more edgy and they are the ones that basically set the tone for for how J was perceived among if I may use the word among elitist not among the folks who live in the flyover States those wonderful flyover States but among the elitist who felt that J's humor was much too milquetoast actually I think J's approach was was exactly what it should be what you want to do is you want to tell jokes that appeal to a broad band of viewers we weren't narrowcasting we were trying to reach a wide group of people and I think J did that very successfully and I think the Mark Twain award is justification finally J gets the credit that he deserves and a lot of people you know would always try to tie a political label to him but you know because we have more of a libertarian audience do you think kind of that independent streak that he was more working-class he worked really hard I know you talked a lot about his work ethic in the book do you think that kind of came through the fact that he was just a little bit more independent and that's maybe why he broke through to such a larger audience I definitely do and again I think you could see it in his monologue jokes I think that resonated with people I really do the fact is in the last you know two three years none of the other late night hosts were doing Obama jokes well Jay felt well J happens to like President Obama but his feeling was you got to go after who's ever in power and he alone was doing jokes about Obama for a long time finally when Obamacare you know became the disaster that it was at least for a while the other host started following soon do you think that his willingness cuz I see it now with Kimmel yeah and a little bit with Fallon and Letterman they've kind of followed suit but do you think that that is kind of one of his main legacies as far as you know being an equal opportunity offender oh my gosh yes I mean I really think that distinguishes him and and yes if I understand your question properly there doesn't seem to be a healthy skepticism of those in power and that concerns me because late night is so influential especially among younger people I think yeah and you know there's also kind of this I guess you can call it a PC movement going on where you've seen a lot of comedians lately having to you know apologize for jokes do you how do you think that affects the material right or did it really come into play when he was crafting his monologue that was a big problem and I have to say that among the the comedy writers and comedians whether they were liberal a conservative they hate PC they do not like political correctness because that restricts them in their job and that was very damaging and it hurt a lot of jokes we had to sort of water down some of the jokes everybody did and and I think everyone suffers as a result you're you're missing SATA you're missing good satire when you look at who's out there now you have Kimmel you have Letterman as stepping down you have Colbert coming in now and now you have Jimmy Fallon who do you see kind of emerging as as that standard bearer of being the top dog I actually am a Jimmy Fallon guy and I like Jimmy Kimmel they're both really good I watched them both but Jimmy Fallon when he took over for Jay honestly I did not want to like him I didn't like the fact that Jay was you know being let go when he was doing so well but when I started watching a Fallon on a regular basis he won me over and I like him because he continues with that really positive upbeat attitude that that Jay represented and he has brought kind of a new perspective he has redefined late-night on his own terms now it's about comedy bits it's about performance the guests get involved they want to get involved Jimmy gets involved because he's so talented and he has done very well I would go so far as to call him the king of late-night he's going to be the guy to be that's my feeling

Donald Trump DESTROYED By President Obama



there's a vicious rumor floating around that I think could really hurt Mitt Romney I heard he passed universal health care when he was governor of Massachusetts someone should get to the bottom of that and I know just the guy to do it Donald Trump is here tonight now I know that he's taken some flak lately but no one is happier no one is prouder to put this birth certificate matter to rest than the Donald and that's because he can finally get back to focusing on the issues that matter why did we fake the moon landing what really happened in Roswell and where are Biggie and Tupac all kidding aside obviously we all know about your credentials and breadth of experience for example no seriously just recently in an episode of Celebrity Apprentice at the steakhouse the men's cooking team did not impress the judges from Omaha Steaks and there was a lot of blame to go around but you mr. Trump recognized that the real problem was a lack of leadership and so ultimately you didn't blame little Jon or meatloaf you fired Gary Busey and these are the kind of decisions that would keep me up at night handled sir well handled say what you will about mr. Trump he certainly would bring some change to the White House see what we've got up there

Hungry For Power Games: Democratic National Convention Edition



WELCOME BACK TO OUR LIVE
COVERAGE — IF WE CAN CALL IT THAT, OF THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL
CONVENTION. WHY NOT? NOBODY'S GOING TO SUE ME. ALL RIGHT. TODAY, THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL
CONVHED WITH IN-FIGHTING OVER THOSE LEAKE
EMAILS AND THE RESIGNATION OF DEBBIE WASSEAN SCHULTZ. T KNOW WAS MORE
OF THAT TODAY. WHY DIDN'T THEY DEAL WITH ALL
THAT YESTERDAY? WELL, MIGHT HAVE BEEN MY FAULT. (LAUGHTER)
TRUTH BE TOLD, YESTERDAY I WENT DOWN TO PHILLY
TO BASK IN THE COMING CONFLICT. IT'S A BLOODSPORT. IT'S LIKE THE "HUNGER GAMES." NO, IT'S WORSE. IT'S! >> AUDIENCE: HUNGRY FOR POWER
GAMES! >> STEPHEN: CALIGULA, WE HAVE
ARRIVED AT THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL CONVENTION. FINALLY, A CHANCE FOR HILLARY
CLINTON TO PROVE TO THE BERNIE DELEGATES THAT SHE IS NOT A
PUPPET OF THE BIG BANKS. AND WHAT BETTER PLACE THAN THE
WELLS FARGO ARENA! OOOH, DELICIOUS, LETS GO! >> S
DESCENDING INTO THE LOWER INTESTINAL TRACT OF THE
T NOW,E ALL OF THEIR IDEALS WILL EVENTUAL
FORM OF A VIABLE C HAHA, IT PAINTS A PICTURE! N.C., ALLYLES ARE WELCOME, BE IT
AY, STRAIGHT, OR PAIN IN THEASS. (LAU
THE OF THE CONCESSIONVER FIND BERNIE SANDERS HERE! HAHA, WORD PLAY! HERE WE ARE AT THE ALL-GENDER
BE YOU FEMALE, MALE, OR WHATEVER THESE SYMBOL
I DON'T KNOW, SEE ME. OH YES, WE HAV
BEHIND ME YOU SEE THE PODIUM UPON WHICH HILLARY CLINTON WILL
BE CROWNED THE NOMINEE OH! SMELL THAT, THE AIR IS
WITH BERNIE'S CRUSHED DREAMS, ITS LIKE A… MUSK HANGING IN
THE AIR. I'M SORRY, THAT'S CALIGULA. HE'S GETTING A BIT GAMEY. LETS GET HIM IN THE
REFRIGERATOR, PLEASE? (LAUGHTER)
HERE AT THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL CONVENTION, THE RUGS ARE ALL
BLUE. SO YOU'LL NOTICE THE CARPET DOES
MATCH THE DRAPES, AND MY PUBIC HAIR! ITS BRIGHT BLUE! I'M REALLY QUITE CONCERNED. (LAUGHTER)
OH, THE ACOUSTICS ARE WONDERFUL IN HERE! "LOCK HER UP, LOCK HER UP!"
OH, THEY'RE GOOD! OH, THAT REALLY RINGS! OH, THAT REALLY RINGS! JAKE, JAKE, YOU MIGHT KNOW, HAVE
YOU SEEN CHUCK TODD? >> NOT TODAY. >> STEPHEN: YOU HAVE NOT SEEN
HIM?GOATEE DID NOT CALL MY WEASEL BACK, AFTER THEY GOT IT
ON AT THE CONVENTION LAST WEEK. OH YES, THEY H
AFTER PARTY. >> CHUCK'S GOATEE HAS A
REPUTATION. >> STEPHEN: OH, ITS GOT A MIND
OF ITS OWN. OH! LET'S GET A PREVIEW OF HILLARY'S
SPEECH– "THIS IS A SAMPLE OF THE FONT AND SIZE OF THE TEXT. THIS IS A SAMPLE OF THE FONT AND
SIZE OF THE TEXT." AND THEY SAY SHE'S ROBOTIC. I DON'T UNDERSTAND! (LAUGHTER)
ALL RIGHT, CALIGULA, GET THE SCENT– GET THE SCENT… AND,
GO! FIND THE EMAILS! (LAUGHTER)
THE ONE THINFT TO DO WAS THE ONE THING THE DEMOCRATS REALLY
DIDN'T WAN: MOUNT THE CROWNED. PODIUM PASS. PASS, EXCUSE ME, THAN THANK YOU. I'M JUST WALKING, I'M NOT GOING
ON, S A PODIUM PASS. T STOP ME NOW. CAN'T GO ON, SIR. NO,
>> Stephen: MY A PODIUMT STOP ME NOW. THERE HAD TO BE MORE THA
>> I'M SO SORRY, SIR. >> STEPHEN: WHAT IF MY WEASEL
JUST WENT ON AND I DIDN'T? I'LL LEAVE, IF YOU JUST LET THE
WEASEL ON.HE WEASEL. WHAT COULD THE WEASEL HURT? THAT ONE DOWN THERE, SHE'S THE
DECISION-MAKER. SOMEONE LOOKED AT HER– SHE'S
THE DECISION-MAKER. SHE HAS THE POWER OF LIFE AND
DEATH OVER ME RIGHT NOW. PLEASE? PLEASE, I HAVE A PODIUM PASS. YOU SHOULD ALLOW ME ON THE
PODIUM, ALL RIGHT? PLEASE! I BEG YOU! I'M SOMEONE'S LITTLE BOY. IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN MY DREAM TO
GO ON THE DEMOCRATIC PODIUM'S STAGE, WHATEVER YOU CALL IT. I KNEW IT WAS TIME TO BRING IN
THE BIG GUNS. YES, SPEAKER PELOSI PLEASE. HI, NANCY, YES. I NEED SOME HELP GETTING ON THE
PODIUM. NO, NO, BRING THE KIDS, IT WILL
BE FUN. NO, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO KEEP
YOU OFF. ALL RIGHT, GREAT, THANKS! NANCY. MAY I CALL YOU NANCY? >> YOU MAY CALL ME NANCY. >> Stephen: I NEED YOU TO
COME ON!ME WEIGHT AROUND. DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL CONVENTION
PODIUM. ♪
LET'S GO. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> NO, MR. COLBERT, YOU'RE
GOING ON THE STAGE. >>
TOGETHER. >> SHE ONES? >> Stephen: YES. THEY'RE GOING TO GO. >> Stephen: BUT I
WE'LL ALL GO TOGETHER. >> YOU'RE N TO ON THE
STAGE. >> Stephen: SO CLOSE, YET S
FAR A OKAY IF I GO ON THE PODIUM? >> NOPE. >> Stephen: OKAY. ♪ OH, SAY CAN SEE ♪
♪ BY THE DAWN'S EARLY LIGHT ♪ ♪ WHAT SO WE HAIL ♪
♪ AT THE TWILIGHT'S LAST GLEAMING SHOW THE WHOSE BROAD
STRIPES AND BRIGHT STARS ♪ ♪ THROUGH THE PERILOUS FIGHT ♪
♪ OR THE RAMPARTS WE WATCH ♪ ♪ WERE SO GALLANTLY STREAMING ♪
♪ AND THE ROCKETS' RED GLARE ♪ ♪ THE BOMBS BURSTING IN AIR ♪
♪ GAVE PROOF THROUGH THE NIGHT ♪ ♪ THAT OUR FLAG WAS STILL
THERE ♪ ♪ OH, SAY DOES THAT
STAR-SPANGLED BANNER YET WAVE ♪ ♪ OR THE LAND OF THE FREE AND
HE HOME OF THE BRAVE ♪ GO ON THE PODIUM NOW? >> NOPE. >> STEPHEN: RESIGNED TO MYE,
I DECIDED TO GO HOME. SHORT CBS PROMO FTHE AFFILIATES. HELLO CBS AFFILIATES, IT'S
JULIUS FLICKERMAN, LIVE FROM THE D.N.C. ALL WEE
THE "LATE SHOW." LET'S GO TO THE PODIUM. IT'LL BE FUN, COME ON. (CHEERS AND APPLAUSE)
>> Stephen: THANK YOU! HAVE A GREAT WEEK! HAVE A GREAT WEEK EVERYBODY! GOD BLESS AMERICA! GOD BLESS FREEDOM! GOD BLESS FREEDOM OF THE PRESS! GOD BLESS THE DEMOCRATIC
NATIONAL COMMITTEE! GOD BLESS PODIUMS! HA HA! HA HA! I'M NOT ONE TO GLOAT, BUT, I
WON! (CHEERS AND APPLAUSE)
>> Stephen: HEY! YEAH! THE STAGE, GO TOW OF ME CHARGING
FACEBOOK.COM/COLBERTLATESHOW. BE RIGHT BACK WITH ALLISON
JANNEY. STICK AROUND.

Political Journalist Lester Kiewit Reacts To Politicians' Faces – South Africa 2019 Elections



so you heard crewman Brown referring to us as the youngsters you know we like to play games so we like to keep it fresh so I'm going to show you faces and I need you to react to these faces with a way you know this can get me into trouble so face face I think all right he was once playful what they are calling played for years the thing is that I think fridge because off he was giving money uh-huh started calling him you know what this is solidarity brother I feel quite sad for for the death of party not necessarily saying that I did intention to vote for him but I I think they they were they were under a single-issue political platform which I think was absolutely great for them I think single-issue parties are important we looking at glass election day I see African independent Congress small party are based in Makati Allen in the Eastern Cape people confused because I have the same colors as the ANC they were right below the eye so the argument is that they actually got a department by mistake but but when they were on their parliamentary stage they only focused on issues of meta TL and that was I think great particularly few people who voted for them back home is not legal so I'm just I know Canton is is incredibly clever he gave you my first internship actually when he was so head of news at that ETV so he's incredibly clever man but he is a professional crunchy Aryan and I think if you say the skies is blue today no that is turquoise [Applause]

Sen. Bernie Sanders: Democratic Socialist Ideas Are Mainstream



>> Stephen: LADIES AND
GENTLEMEN WELCOME BACK. FOLKS– OH, LADIES AND
GENTLEMEN, OH, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN
( CHEERS AND APPLAUSE ) I'M HERE TO TELL YOU, YOU KNOW–
YOU KNOW AND LOVE MY NEXT GUEST FROM HIS 2016 PRESIDENTIAL RUN,
HIS WORK AS A SENATOR, AND FROM THE TRA MOVIES, PLEASE WELCOME
SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS. ♪ ♪ ♪
( CHEERS AND APPLAUSE ) ♪ ♪ ♪
( CHEERS AND APPLAUSE ) >> Stephen: SENATE, GOOD TO
SEE YOU AGAIN. >> Audience: BERNIE! BERNIE! BERNIE! BERNIE! BERNIE! BERNIE! >> Stephen: WOW. WOW. EVERYWHERE YOU GO, RIGHT? EVERYWHERE YOU GO, OTHER THAN
THE SENATE. YOUR VERMONT PRIMARY WAS TODAY,
OKAY. WHAT ARE YOU DOING HERE? ( LAUGHTER )
SHOULDN'T YOU BE– >> WELL, I VOTED EYE VOTED IN
THE MORNING. >> Stephen: OKAY. >> I WAS AROUND THE STATE THE
OTHER DAY. I THINK WE WILL DO JUST FINE. >> Stephen: OKAY, NO WORRIES. ( APPLAUSE )
BECAUSE YOU DON'T– YOU DON'T WANT TO PULL A CROWLEY HERE. >> NO, WE DON'T. >> Stephen: THAT WAS A
SURPRISE. CROWLEY DIDN'T THINK HE HAD TO
CAMPAIGN HARD ENOUGH AND ORCARSIO-CORTEZ CAME IN AND
CLEANED HIS CLOCK. >> AND THAT WAS A GOOD THING,
TOO. >> Stephen: ALL RIGHT, YOU
HAVE BEEN CAMPAIGNING WITH– SHE USED TO WORK FOR YOU, ACTUALLY,
FOR YOUR CAMPAIGN. AND YOU'VE BEEN OUT THERE WITH
ALEXANDRIA ORTAWZIO-ORTEZ RIGHT THERE. BOTH OF YOU IDENTIFY AS
DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISTS. WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? >> I THINK IT MEANS, AMONG OTHER
THINGS, THAT IF YOU WORK 40 HOURS A WEEK IN THE WEALTHIEST
COUNTRY IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD, YOU SHOULD BE EARNING A
LIVING WAGE, 15 BUCKS AN HOUR. THAT'S WHAT IT MEANS. ( APPLAUSE )
IT MEANS– IT MEANS– IT MEANS, STEPHEN, IT MEANS THAT WE END
THE INTERNATIONAL DISGRACE OF THE UNITED STATES BEING THE ONLY
MAJOR COUNTRY ON EARTH NOT TO GUARANTEE HEALTH CARE TO ALL
PEOPLE AS A RIGHT WHILE WE END UP SPENDING TWICE AS MUCH PER
CAPITA ON HEALTH CARE AS ANY OTHER MAJOR NATION. ( APPLAUSE )
IT– IT MEANS THAT WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE FUTURE OF THIS COUNTRY
ARE OUR YOUNG PEOPLE, AND THAT IT IS INSANE THAT HUNDREDS OF
THOUSANDS OF BRIGHT YOUNG KIDS CANNOT AFFORD TO GO TO COLLEGE
BECAUSE OF THE INCOME OF THEIR FAMILIES, AND MANY OTHERS ARE
LEAVING SCHOOL DEEPLY IN DEBT, AND WE'RE GOING TO MAKE PUBLIC
COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES TUITION FREE. ( CHEERS AND APPLAUSE )
AND IT– AND IT MEANS THAT ITS GLOBAL CITIZENS, PEOPLE
UNDERSTAND WE HAVE A MORAL OBLIGATION TO LEAVE A HEALTHY
PLANET TO OUR CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN. WE'RE GOING TO STAND UP TO
TRUMP, AND WE'RE GOING TO TRANSFORM OUR ENERGY SYSTEM IN
THIS COUNTRY AWAY FROM FOSSIL FUEL TO ENERGY EFFICIENCY, AND
SUSTAINABLE ENERGYS. THAT'S WHAT IT MEANS. ( APPLAUSE )
>> Stephen: OKAY, SO, OTHER PEOPLE, OTHER PEOPLE HAVE
ESPOUSED THOSE IDEAS WITHOUT CALLING THEMSELVES SOCIALISTS. EVER SINCE THE NEW DEAL AND
CERTAINLY SINCE THE GREAT SOCIETY, THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY
HAS BEEN ASSOCIATED WITH THE SOCIAL SAFETY NET AND
ESSENTIALLY BEEN SOCIALISM CURIOUS. ( LAUGHTER )
BUT WHY DO YOU NEED TO CALL YOURSELF STOACIALIST, BECAUSE
THAT HAS SUCH– THAT'S FREIGHTED WITH SO MUCH NEGATIVITY IN THE
UNITED STATES. >> I'LL TELL YOU WHY. >> Stephen: I'M JUST SAYING
THAT, PEOPLE ARE VERY EXCITED ABOUT ORCARSIO-ORCEZ, I'VE HAD
HER IN THE SE SEAT. BUT THE PEOPLE SHE CAMPAIGNED
DID NOT WIN THEIR PRIMARIES. ONLY HALF THE PEOPLE YOU HAVE
CAMPAIGNED FOR HAVE WON THEIR PRIMARIES. MAYBE THERE'S A
TAINT OF SOCIALISM THAT TURNS PEOPLE OFF. >> I DON'T THINK SO. I THINK THE IDEAS WE HAVE BEEN
TALKING ABOUT, ALMOST WITHOUT EXCEPTION, STEPHEN, ARE NOW
IDEAS THAT ARE MAINSTREAM IDEAS THAT ARE SUPPORTED BY THE VAST
MAJORITY OF AMERICAN PEOPLE. AND I THINK, ALSO, PEOPLE IN
THEIR GUT UNDERSTAND THAT WE'RE LIVING IN A REALLY STRANGE
MOMENT IN AMERICAN HISTORY, ABOVE AND BEYOND DONALD TRUMP–
WHICH IS VERY STRANGE. ( LAUGHTER ). >> Stephen: WHAT IS STRANGER
THAN DONALD TRUMP? WHAT IS STRANGER–
>> THIS IS WHAT MIGHT BE– ( LAUGHTER )
MIGHT BE STRANGER IS THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT A TIME WHERE WE HAVE
AN OUT-OF-CONTROL CAPITALISM, WHERE THE GREED OF THE PEOPLE ON
TOP IS REALLY UNBELIEVABLE. I MEAN–
( APPLAUSE ) RIGHT NOW, RIGHT NOW, IN
AMERICA, YOU'VE GOT THREE PEOPLE WHO OWN MORE WEALTH THAN THE
BOTTOM 50% OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. YOU'VE GOT THE ONE-TENTH OF 1%
OWNING MORE WEALTH THAN THE BOTTOM. YOU HAVE ONE GUY, JEFF BASISOS,
OF AMAZON, HIS WEALTH IS INCREASING EVERY SINGLE DAY BY
$250 MILLION A DAY, BUT HE PAYS HIS WORKERS– MANY OF HIS
WORKERS– WAGES THAT ARE SO LOW THAT MANY OF THEM ARE ON FOOD
STAMPS OR MEDICAID. YOU'VE GOT A SITUATION TODAY
WHERE THE BIG-MONEY INTERESTS CAN NOW CONTRIBUTE HUNDREDS AND
HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS INTO ELECTIONS SOELECT
CANDIDATES WHO REPRESENT THE WEALTHWEALTHET AND POWERFUL, WHI
SURND MINING AMERICAN DEMOCRACY. AND I THINK PEOPLE ARE SICK AND
TIRED OF THE GREED AND THE POWER OF A HANDFUL OF PEOPLE ON TOP. THEY WANT A GOVERNMENT WHICH
REPRESENTS ALL OF US, NOT JUST THE 1%. ( CHEERS AND APPLAUSE )
>> Stephen: WELL, WHO DO YOU– ( CHEERS AND APPLAUSE )
I THINK– I THINK ALL THAT IS WELL TAKEN. WHO DO YOU BLAME? DO YOU THINK THAT THE DEMOCRATS
DO A BETTER JOB OF STAIRING DOWN BIG MONEY AND CORPORATIONS AND
THE EXCESSES OF LATE-STAGE CAPITALISM, AS MANY PEOPLE CALL
IT? OR DO YOU BLAME THE REPUBLICANS
TOTALLY FOR THIS? >> WELL, I THINK WHAT WE VANOW
IS A REPUBLICAN PARTY WHICH IN THE LAST 30 YEARS HAS MOVED
VERY, VERY FAR TO THE RIGHT. YOU HAVE THE KOCH BROTHERS, ONE
OF THE WEALTHIEST FAMILIES IN THIS PARTY WHAT'S IDEOLOGY IS
THE IDEOLOGY OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY AND TRUMP. YOU HAVE A PRESIDENT, IN DONALD
TRUMP, WHO CAMPAIGN– IT'S NOT FORGET– TOLD THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE HE WOULD NOT CUT SOCIAL SECURITY, MEDICARE, AND
MEDICAID. AND THEN BECAUSE HE BELIEVES IN
THIS TRUMP EDOLOGY, HE BROUGHT A BUDGET FORWARD WHICH CALLED FOR
A $1 TRILLION CUTS IN MEDICAID. HE CALLED FOR $500 BILLION IN
MEDICARE, AND $60 BILLION IN THE SOCIAL SECURITY DISABILITY FUND. THIS IS AFTER HE GAVE $1
TRILLION IN TAX BREAKS TO THE TOP 1% OVER A 10-YEAR PERIOD. >> Stephen: BUT THE DEMOCRATS
ARE ALSO SEEM BEHOLDEN TO BIG MONEY, TOO. >> ABSOLUTELY. >> Stephen: IT'S NOT LIKE THEY
TURN DOWN THE CHECKS. >> YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. AND I THINK THAT WHAT I HAVE
BEEN TRYING TO DO, WHAT ALEXANDRIA IS TRYING TO DO, IS
TO TRANSFORM THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY SO THAT THEY OPEN THEIR
DOORS TO YOUNG PEOPLE AND WORKING PEOPLE AND BECOMING A
PARTY OF ORDINARY AMERICANS, NOT JUST BIG-MONEY INTEREST. AND THAT'S SOMETHING I HAVE BEEN
WORKING ON REALLY HARD. ( APPLAUSE )
>> Stephen: IF THINGS ARE. >> —
>> AND LET ME JUST– LET ME JUST SAY, STEPHEN, ALL OVER THIS
COUNTRY WHAT WE ARE SEEING IS SOMETHING EXTRAORDINARY. WE'RE SEEING A LOT OF PEOPLE FOR
THE FIRST TIME, OFTEN WOMEN, PEOPLE OF COLOR, YOUNG PEOPLE–
RUNNING FOR OFFICE FROM SCHOOL BOARD– OR IN THE CASE OF
ALEXANDRIA, TO THE U.S. CONGRESS. AND NOT ALL OF THEM, BUT MANY OF
THEM ARE ACTUALLY WINNING. >> Stephen: WE HAVE TO TAKE A
LITTLE BREAK, BUT WE'LL BE RIGHT BACK WITH MORE SENATOR BERNIE
SANDERS.

The COMIC GENIUS of Ronald Reagan – Our Funny 40th US President's humor – compiled by Kevin Hunter



I'm pleased to be here tonight honoring my very dear friend Frank Sinatra I must say that when this program was being planned the producer hadn't decided what political figures would participate it was a choice between me and Governor Brown and I lost again seriously this is Frank Sinatra's night and I'm here out of gratitude Frank worked for me in all my campaigns he was with me all the way to the governor's mansion without his help who knows I might have been president it's my considered opinion that the two gentlemen who flanked me would make quite a political ticket Franca's president Dean as his crawling mate pranks are not to make a good president let's look at the facts he has many friends and I'm sure he'd appoint only the most qualified to his cabinet who better than Sammy Davis jr. a secretary of health education and jewelry boys in politics there's always gossip and ugly rumors I'm happy to expose one for the falsehood that it is he has not granted a Pizza Hut franchise at Camp David it'll be in the White House where it belongs canasa will make a president who is strong on defense but again will have concern for humanity scientists at his urging have developed an intercontinental ballistic missile that is not a weapon of mass destruction it only hits photographers I asked him what he thought of the energy bill he didn't hesitate a second said pay it Franca's innovated his mind is always working but he's also willing to admit when he's wrong like wanting a comic like Pat Henry to open for him when he addresses the joint session of Congress and he realized speak to Congress the real comics are in the audience you won't have any trouble with Congress they'll pass all the legislation he sends over just to get his autograph and he'll settle that canal business – animal wants a canal you give them Venice you probably gathered by now I think Frank Sinatra would make a fine president but I don't know whether we can get him to run is it worth it if you have to give up being a king i Ronald Reagan do solemnly swear that I heard Baker told me on the steps of the Capitol to viability at the time of the inaugural he said mr. president I want you to know I will be with you through thick and I said what about thin he said welcome to Washington today marks my first State of the Union address to you a constitutional duty as old as our Republic itself President Washington began this tradition in 1790 after reminding the nation that the destiny of self-government and the preservation of the sacred fire of Liberty is finally staked on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people for our friends in the press who plays a high premium on accuracy let me say I did not actually hear George Washington sale I know you don't have to spend much time in Washington to appreciate the prophetic vision of the man who designed all the streets there they go in circles the story was an American and a Russian arguing about their two countries and the Americans said look in my country I can walk into the Oval Office I can pound the President's desk and say mr. president I don't like the way you're running our country and a Russian said I can do that the Americans you can he says yes I can go into the Kremlin to the general secretary's office pound his desk and say mister general secretary I don't like the way President Reagan's running his country less than one family out of seven in the Soviet Union owns an automobile most of the automobiles are driven by the bureaucrats the government furnishes them and drivers and so forth so an order went out one day to the police that anyone caught speeding anyone no matter who gets a ticket well Gorbachev came out of his country home his dacha he was late getting to the Kremlin there was his limousine and driver waiting he told the driver to get in the backseat he drive it down the road he went they passed two motorcycle cops one took out after him and pretty soon he's back with his buddy and his buddy says well did you give him a ticket and he said no what he said why not oh he said that to him important one he said we're told to give anybody a ticket no matter who it is all we said no no this one was too I could what he said who was it he said I couldn't recognize him but his driver was Gorbachev I remember the story of a fellow who was running for office as a Republican and he was in a rural area and that wasn't known to be Republican and he stopped by a farm to do some campaigning and when the farmer heard he was a Republican his jaw dropped and he said wait right here till I go get more she's never seen a Republican before so he got her and the candidate looked around for a podium from which to give his speech and the only thing he could find was a pile of that stuff that Bess Truman took 35 years trying to get Harry to call fertilizer so he got up on the mound and when they came back he gave his speech and at the end of it the farmer said that's the first time I ever heard a Republican speech and the candidate said that's the first time I've ever given a Republican speech from a Democratic platform was an old Kansas farmer there he had a piece of creek bottom land that had never been developed at all there was all rocks and brush and all messed up and he started in on it clearing the underbrush and hauling away the rocks then cultivating the soil there and he planted a garden everything from vegetables onto corn and and it really became a garden spot he was pretty proud of what he'd done so one Sunday morning in church after the service he asked the preacher if he wouldn't stop by to have a look well preacher arrived and he took one look and he said oh this is wonderful he said these are the biggest tomatoes I've I have ever seen praise the Lord he said those green beans that squash those melons he said the Lord really has blessed this place and look at the height of that corn he said that God has really been been good and the old boy was listening to all this and he was getting more and more fidgety and finally he blurted out Reverend I wish you could have seen it when the Lord was doing it by himself he was on the stand and a lawyer said to him while you were lying there at the scene of the accident didn't someone come up to you and ask you how you were feeling and didn't you answer that you never felt better in your life well he said yeah yes I guess I remember that that happening well later on redirect another lawyer was asking the question and he said what were the circumstances when you gave that answer as to how you felt well he said I was lying there and he said a car came up and a deputy sheriff got out he said my horse was neighing with pain and kicking at two broken legs the deputy sheriff put the gun in his ear and and put the horse out of his misery he said my dog had a broken back and was whining with pain and he went over did the same thing but there and shot him then he came over to me and said no how are you feeling at the entrance of his building there was an elderly lady selling pretzels and every day he'd go by and he'd put a quarter down and never take a pretzel go on in he was being very charitable and this went on for some time and he came along one day put down his quarters started and she took him for the arm and he looked at her and he said well you probably want to know why for this full year I've been leaving 25 cents on the plate not taking a pretzel and she said no I just wanted to tell you the pretzels of 35 cents now Reagan clearly relished the job missingno opportunity to joke about his favorite targets communism big government high taxes if the big spenders get their way they'll charge everything on your taxpayers Express card and believe me they never leave home without it I will not make age an issue of this campaign I am NOT going to exploit for political purposes my opponents youth and inexperience he exploited his own age to a fairly well on that subject he was happy to aim jokes squarely at himself one of my favorite quotations about age comes from Thomas Jefferson he said that we should never judge a president by his age only by his work and ever since he told me that I've stopped ruled he was a master at the art of width his weapon with a sly well-timed comeback he could disarm even the press its president in talking about the continuing recession tonight you have blamed mistakes of the past and you blamed the Congress does any of the blame belong to you yes because for many years I was a Democrat it was falling grabbed a limb sticking out the side of the cliff and looked down 300 feet to the canyon floor below and then looked up and said or if there's anyone up there give me faith tell me what to do and a voice from the heavens said if you have faith let go he looked down to the canyon floor and then took another look up and says is there anyone else up there and one day a former place kicker with the Los Angeles Rams who later became a sports announcer Danny Villanueva told me about communications he said he'd been having dinner over at the home of young ball player with the Dodgers the young wife was bustling about getting the dinner ready they were talking sports and the baby started to cry and over her shoulder his busy wife said to the ballplayer to change the baby and he was a young felon he was embarrassed in front of Danny and he said what do you mean change the baby I'm a ballplayer that's not my line of work and she turned around put her hands on her hips and she communicated she said look Buster you lay the diaper out like a diamond it puts second base on home plate you put the baby's bottom on the pitcher's mound you hook up first and third slide home underneath and if it starts to rain the game ain't called you start all over I understand ABC's having some budget problems the news division has already laid off three hairstylists well they aren't alone that sweater Dan rather wears came from Goodwill Industries I've been criticized for going over the head of Congress so what's the fuss a lot of things go over their heads his wit rivaled that of his two idols Franklin Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln he liked to laugh President Lincoln as a matter of fact he was criticized for it once and he said if I couldn't laugh I couldn't stand this job for 15 minutes I've already lived about 20 years longer than my life expectancy at the time I was born that's a source of annoyance to a great many people his said that Castro was making a speech to a large assembly and he was going on at great length and then a voice out in the crowd said peanuts popcorn Cracker Jack and he went on speaking and again the voice said peanuts popcorn Cracker Jack and about the fourth time this happened he stopped in his regular speech and he said the next time he says that he says I'm gonna find out who he is and kick him all the way to Miami and everybody in the crowd said peanuts popcorn now I've been told that this is all off the record and that the cameras are all off is that right I was told that because I've been waiting years to do this as soon as I get home to California I plan to lean back kick up my feet and take a long nap I'll come to think of it things won't be all that different after all you

Anthony Giddens on The Politics of Climate Change



I feel I have to start by saying a bit about the science of climate change because of what's been happening across the world in the newspapers recently basically there are three positions on climate change and what its implications are for us first of all there is of course the view of the climate change sceptics the skeptics hold either that climate change is not happening if you check Nigel Nigel Lawson's book for example a comrade of mine in the House of Lords you'll find he says that climate change has stopped for the past few years and therefore we can't be sure that it will resume again some skeptics accept that climate change is happening but say it's not caused by human activity it's caused by natural events in the wider world their various versions of climate change skepticism this position is an important one not so much I feel within the scientific community but certainly in terms of politics because the impact of the sceptics on politics is quite profound more marked in some countries than others but if you look at global opinion surveys since Copenhagen which is not that long ago you find a mark shift in public opinion in many countries where people increasing proportion of people no longer believe that climate changes either dangerous or caused by human activity so political implications a much greater I think than scientific status really of the sceptics but there are people writing books you know which are worth checking like this recent one by Peter Taylor I think is called called the chill we you know he was an environmentalist and he's now become a climate change skeptic so there are scientists there who dispute the conventional wisdom so that's the skeptics second there is the Orthodox position represented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change the IPCC which I'm sure everyone here will know has been collecting the researcher of hundreds of scientists thousands of scientists across the world produce four large volumes documenting the state of play with climate change in its risks for us very boldly put you know the IPCC says climate changes indeed dangerous it is indeed almost certainly 90% certain caused by human activity by the advent of industrial civilization which is spewing out greenhouse gases into the atmosphere however the IPCC tends to see the most serious dangers are some way down the line tends to focus on two oh four oh – oh five oh and later when documenting the most dramatic implications of climate change there is however a third position I think it's very important to know this because I don't think the public gets the same kind of representation of this position as it does of the climate change skeptics and that's the views of people I'll call the radicals the radicals are not unlike most of the skeptics and non scientists they are scientists and they say gain briefly put the things are much worse than the IPCC argues people like James Lovelock or James Hansen of NASA representative of this position for anyone's interested in these things I'd strongly recommend taking a look at Lovelock's most recent book and which is called the disappearing face of Gaia a final warning in which he actually he's critical of the IPCC for the same reasons Nigel Lawson is he sees the IPCC as a kind of artificially contrived partly political consensus but whereas Nigel Lawson says this leads him to be skeptical that climate changes opening or is particularly dangerous Lovelock reaches diametrically opposed conclusion again as you probably know he says the climate change was already on the path to wrecking devastation in the world the radicals say that the risks posed by climate change are more proximate are more dramatic and more thoroughgoing than the orthodox scientific community says they talk of tipping points in climate change they argue that the past geological record shows that even within a period of 10 years you can get quite dramatic alterations in the world climate produce naturally we're in danger quite close to doing the same thing through our own activities so that if you look in for example eastern Siberia in Russia the peat bogs have been frozen for millions of years they are now melting underneath the peat bogs there is buried masses of methane methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than co2 the one that all people ordinarily talk about even though it stays less time in the atmosphere the consequence the radicalist say could be dramatic jump in global temperatures producing untold and devastating consequences not in some remote future but in the relatively short time according to Lovelock's I said these a lot of these things are already locked into the world system you know when you look at I'm not a scientist and not not many scientists or climate scientists I spent two years looking at the scientific literature as best I could and it certainly seems to me that the radicals have a greater chance of being right the skeptics so you have to assess the implications of these things and try to reach our position interestingly the three groups I've like different views of the earth and what we're doing to the earth for the gainer than how you assess these things but they'd have a certain disturbing consequence for the skeptics that the earth is essentially robust and nothing we do can affect it the earth is indifferent to what we as puny human beings do you know for the Orthodox community scientific green type community the earth is vulnerable and we're damaging it we're damaging its ecosystems by our intrusions into nature but for the radicals the radicals see the earth as as an active a being as it were which will react violently to our intrusion so they say what we're doing is like pricking a wild animal with sticks and it's going to react violently to us so that's a much more disturbing metaphor really of climate change there's implications for it for us and my conclusion you know science is based on skepticism you never know what might be discovered next but so far as we can know with a very high degree of certainty we can say that scientific evidence is pretty solid it is very disturbing we're on the edge of doing something that no other civilization could ever have accomplished or ever have been responsible for which is not only potentially altering the world's climate in a radical way but altering it in an irrevocable way climate change it's quite different from a program like global poverty global poverty is a bad thing right that'd be a bad thing in 205 oh if we don't improve the state of state of affairs in the world at the moment climate change is not like global poverty though because once the greenhouse gases are in the atmosphere we don't know of any way of getting them out of there and most of them will be there for centuries so we're on the verge potentially doing something quite irrevocable to the world's climate and you know some of the most serious consequences are not actually the global heating effect so I think it should follow a Lovelock Motoko globe globe or heating rather than global warming because the metaphor is the stronger one really it's the incidence of much more violent dramatic and dream weather conditions which will have quite well-documented scenarios you know disastrous consequences especially as they interact with other world problems and if we can't do anything about them if this is a you know once they're there they're there that's a pretty fearsome prospect I think my view is the world has to organize to contest climate change while giving talks I usually you know try and find a few jokes to tell so I was looking for climate change jokes but anyone who works in a climate change field will know first of all there are hardly any climate change jokes which is the joke about climate change I suppose too serious to make jokes about and everyone's probably heard the few jokes that there are but our risk at least one which is sort of that mildly funny one planet is talking to another planet and the first planet says I'm not feeling too well I think I've got Homo sapiens and the second planet says oh don't worry that doesn't last very long well you know I think but I think the joke is real because you know having worked on this last thought well it seems to me industrial civilization is in the business of subverting itself it's come to a a sort of existential crisis of which climate changes the most serious expression the only one expression of the unsustainability of the world which we've which we've created in which we are living him now of course the world community has sought to mobilize Copenhagen meetings happened in December my went and spoke in the first sort of opening bit of the conference Copenhagen whichever way you look at it was a sort of fiasco because to me it wasn't even really very well organized you had all 192 countries had hunt 20 States leaders everybody milling around all over the place lots of people not me how to get into events they're supposed to actually speak up so you had a somewhat Fiasco like quality I mean there it was four countries met than ever before more states leaders and ever been to any other global event you know ending in a sort of fiasco like thing but I don't feel too bad about it because again if you check my book I never thought that Kyoto style approaches would lead to a lot I never thought that Copenhagen would produce a serious and kind of radical agreement we need to contest climate change that was very hard to get 192 nations to agree on anything Copenhagen to me expresses that the more general system of international relations we have at the moment where we live in a much more interdependent world climate change being a negative expression of that but where we simply don't have the instruments of global governments effectively to control the forces which we've unleashed and we've got to try to build them the way to build them however is not I think through United Nations complete consensus style method Kyoto has not had much impact on on global emissions we all know that it took an awful long time to be ratified we don't have that time so I always thought we needed a more experimental and fast-moving process which for me could have gone on a long site Kyoto style agreements as it is the world stumbled into it almost by default because of the last-minute agreement that led to the Copenhagen Accord I won't say an awful lot about the Copenhagen Accord but very willing to discuss any of these things afterwards with anyone who's interested in brief you know the Copenhagen Accord is along the lines of what I thought we would always need if we were going to effectively try to combat climate change as I hear are now problem of stress again is a here and now a problem is not lots of years hence problem it's it here and now problem has to be dealt with reasonably quickly the advantages of the Accord over Copenhagen style structures are fairly easy to see you have a smaller group of Nations involved almost certainly therefore can move more quickly you crosscut the division that existed that destroyed Copenhagen really between the developed nations and the developing countries of the world as you know the so called basic group from which the EU did not figure as everyone famously known as I'm sure the so-called basic group because that's what the initials spell involves the big developing countries we must have the big developing countries involved alongside the industrial countries to do anything effective only a handful of countries in the world produce something like 85 percent of total global emissions it always seemed to me that the big polluters have had got to get together this was suggestion was actually made by mister President George Bush was never really followed up because he was President George Bush who seemed to be in a state of denial in other respects but I think you know we are going to have to pioneer new structures and international relations and we climate change has to be both kind of an expression of this and the means of doing so I don't feel completely pessimistic about it but it's an open question what will happen to the Accord how many countries will sign up whether there will be any kind of legal legally binding structure which emerges from it those things to me are desirable but quite a lot of you know bilateral and regional agreements are clearly going to be necessary if you follow what happened with the WTO WTO couldn't reach universal agreement that wasn't a good thing on the other hand a lot of interesting things have happened because of that you have got a lot of regional agreements you have got quite a lot of effective bilateral agreements we're going to have to do the same thing Willy nearly for climate change however my main thesis is that no matter what happens on an international level it's no good having agreements if you can't implement them through the core thing for trying to contest climate change is that you must have effective climate change policy it's clear especially in the wake of Copenhagen or with Iran I thought it was clear before that a lot of this has to be led at the national level and that therefore national policy will count for enormous amount we have to look at how it can be made effective and we can also say that policy in the industrial countries will count for most because whatever happens to a structure of international agreements one of the things is accepted across the world is that the industrial countries have the greatest historic responsibility for introducing greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere therefore they have the front line responsibility for cutting down their co2 and other greenhouse gas emissions in as rapid and as a radical way as possible if you look at what's happened since Kyoto and you look at the whole range of industrial countries you can see why the leaders of the big developing states are not all that keen to sign up with agreements because the record of the industrial countries so far is actually not terribly impressive in terms of what's actually been achieved and in terms of what they were supposed to do even with the relatively modest Kyoto targets what you have among the industrial states is a cluster of avant-garde countries which have done quite well in terms of active energy policy and active reduction of greenhouse gas emissions these would include the usual suspects of Denmark Sweden Germany France because of nuclear energy small cluster of countries some of whom have them a lot of hydro electricity like Norway for example although it doesn't actually have a very good emissions record but nevertheless has a lot of renewable energy in its energy mix you have a kind of avant-garde of countries which is done reasonably well but even if you look at the avant-garde why they've done reasonably well is not simply or probably even primarily because of climate change policy most of the countries that have got a high proportion of renewables in there energy mix have got them because they reacted to the first energy crisis of the late 1970s early 1980s in other words they were driven by energy security considerations this is when Denmark and Sweden started to rethink their energy policy it's when Japan tried to improve its energy efficiency ratio it's when France introduced a large-scale commitment to nuclear power and so forth the disturbing thing about this is a second about 30 years for these changes to happen in the case of climate change we don't have 30 years to make pretty radical changes in our energy mix beyond the small cluster of avant-garde countries you have a long tail of countries which without the impact of recession anyway which has given us a kind of breathing space wouldn't have reached their Kyoto targets and you have plenty of countries which signed up to Kyoto where emissions were actually increased pretty radically rather than declining I'm in Europe Spain Greece Italy are among those countries in the wider world Australia Canada and of course the United States and Japan because Japan even though it has high energy efficiency in some aspects of his economy has a lot of qualified power stations therefore its emissions rose pretty generously during that period but in some countries they've risen really steeply over the Kyoto Protocol so United States did not sign up to Kyoto but Canada did originally and then simply later on say well we're just going to ignore it Australia did as radically rising emissions so the historical record is not very good we somehow got to make much more dramatic impact ethically economically if we're going to make a serious attack on these issues there's a lot that can be said about that that I limit myself to four main points about what I think we have to think about in the context of national political systems their interaction with business and industry if we're going to get a step change really in our reduction of greenhouse gas emissions first of all we've got to find a way back to a politics of the long term when you're discussing energy and climate change you're talking about 2030 year cycle but you're talking to me about return to planning planning course went out of vogue during that if you want to call it that the neoliberal period of the past 30 or so years planning was not effective in Soviet style situations not very effective in this country either but you can't have a 20 or 30-year perspective on politics without planning in some sense therefore we've got to find a way of producing effective policy over the long term which will somehow cope with the fact that technological innovation is not predictable by and large there are many uncertainties in technological innovation we need plenty of innovation we've got to try to achieve it but by and large we don't know where it will come from the biggest innovations like the internet or whatever and usually come out the side field not as a result of deliberate planning and interventionism cluster of issues to resolve there was clearly an overlap between developing a long term politics of climate change and response to the world financial crisis many people of course are talking about return of the role of government and the return of regulation to me very necessary both nationally and internationally impossible not to say this is the case however to get it right it seems to me it won't do just to transfer market relationships back to the state we've got to find as it were a new relationship between the state and markets not just nationally but also on a on a wider level if I can give you a concrete example of this I've been studying in some detail the insurance industry because insurance is going to play a key role in adaptation to climate change we almost certainly got at least a 2% increase in average global which is already locked into the system why what's happened we have to protect people against the consequences that are already there and of course this could worsen if you look at examples like Hurricane Katrina you can see that the state even in in a rich country like the United States is not able to cover more than a small portion of the insurance which will protect people especially poorer people in the face of such catastrophes therefore follows to me that the private insurance industry is going to have to play a major role in this we have to somehow find a way of allowing markets to operate in the long term and making this effective there are some very interesting things going on in the insurance industry some big insurance companies are now developing long term catastrophe bonds these are based to some extent on financial mechanisms which are currently under a cloud such as derivatives because you have to have a lot of off laying of risk if you're going to seriously protect people especially poorer people in the future but you can't see some things emerging here and Bangladesh is especially interesting because in Bangladesh they're pioneering sort of mixed between low-tech and high-tech and they're using for example floating gardens which allow you to carry on agriculture even during periods of flooding they're organizing these through local kinship networks but at the same time they did at developing insurance protection mechanisms based upon high technology satellite tracking we're able to track the path of storms much more accurately than we than even four or five years ago and what determines the amount of damage you know in a violent weather pattern is actually the path of the storm rather than just the intensity of the storm I offer that as an example of what seems to me we need a lot of invention and experimentation and relationship between government and markets here to me there's far too much emphasis placed on technology in the existing discussions of climate change I mean obviously it will be important renewable technologies but we're going to need innovation on the level of international relations and social innovation political innovation just as much as we're going to need technological innovation second politically we have to find as far as we can a way of controlling political polarization around climate change I don't feel one can insist too strongly the climate change is not a left-right issue to me it has nothing to do with left-right politics it's an issue for the future of humanity it's not about saving the planet is about saving decent way of life for human beings on the planet and it doesn't to me have any left/right dimension however there is a serious danger inside national political systems that it does become polarized in that way if and when it does so very hard to see how you're going to get either effective climate change policy or long term climate change policy the most serious example where this is happening at the moment is in the United States where you know President Obama came to Copenhagen with nothing to offer really because he hasn't managed to get a climate change bill through Congress again not surprising that the Chinese took the attitudes they did when Obama came with a notional and low offer on the table what's happened in the United States is you've got almost complete polarization between Republicans and Democrats around the issue of climate change you might have seen the research by the Pew Center which is ongoing research on public attitudes to climate change in the United States not actually so different from here and now only about the low thirty percent of people believe that climate change is dangerous caused by human activity and threatens our future down from 30 percent about two years ago almost all the people who have changed their views are either Republicans or independents they're not Democrats and what's happening is that a climate change package has been seen as an overall package which President Obama's tried to get through Congress we the right doesn't like healthcare socialist thing logical intervention in the economy socialist thing climate change well that must be a socialist thing to well I mean it's quite crippling because you know we're suffering from a lack of global leadership on climate change and like many people I was hoping that President Obama could provide their inspirational leadership I still hope that he can but structurally at the moment it looks difficult I think in other countries we have to struggle to avoid this kind of polarization in the UK I think the same thing is true here so far we've been pretty successful because I spoke in I'm several of the bills which have gone through Parliament the climate change bill the energy bill speaking tomorrow in the bill on management of floods adaptation type bill we've had a remarkable consensus in Parliament on those faiths the bills actually became more radical rather than less radical as they went through Parliament and all three parties supported them however supposing other conservatives do win the election it's possible that they could experience similar kinds of tensions because you can see an incipient polarization between climate change scepticism anti-european ISM a kind of right-wing view on world affairs which which could have an impact in the UK see across the world we have to try and hold the line if we can on political polarization and I think my view will be that the left has a special responsibility on this because the left is tempted to see climate change and environmental issues as its issues it shouldn't do that I think so I'm against any theorems like green is the new red because that immediately I think that means that well the levitical right are not going to support that kind of theorem so I think the issue of you know political polarization very closely related the issue of developing long term policy we won't be out of develop long term policy if every incoming government reverses the which the previous one had – it's quite a difficult and testing issue thirdly we're a key point after Copenhagen where we have to master enthusiasm for change and I think it's become more conventional that was in the past but quite correct I think and I certainly argue in my book that it's not enough just to talk in terms of avoiding catastrophe avoiding catastrophe is difficult for the average member of the public to relate to partly because climate change is not visible by the time it is visible it'd be too late to deal with it partly because it's filtered through the findings of science which are inaccessible not only to the lay person but too many other highly educated people not able themselves to be experts in that area it makes it a difficult kind of issue partly because the public becoming newer to catastrophes catastrophe movies are everywhere hard to disentangle climate change from a variety of other catastrophic futures the presented to us it therefore follows I think that we've got to have a much more positive view of what we can achieve through developing a low-carbon economy and through having a sustainability agenda I didn't see this is at all impossible you'll probably know that um the the two american environmentalists Shellenberger and north house became famous in the american environmental community when they said Martin Luther King wouldn't have got anywhere if he said I've got a nightmare you've got to have a dream of the future you've got to have a vision of the future I certainly think this is this is true a good chunk of it to me can be built around renewable but energy because there is a pretty substantial overlap between energy security and climate change and if we look around the world who are taking the lead in terms of of investing in renewables it's not just countries like Germany is now China it has for a long time being Brazil where of course they use biofuels which are environmentally suspect but nevertheless quite an avant-garde country the same is true of India now planning very large-scale investments in renewable energy driven I think partly by climate change worries but mainly by energy security considerations I think we're living at the end of the age of oil in one sense or another just as I was saying over lunch that were living at the I think the end of as it were the American era the 20th century was an American Century and was the century of oil really I think that we're moving beyond that transition I think critical leaders see that like other people do and therefore are making large color investments so this could be one driving force of change I think you have to insist however it's not enough many people make the mistake of assuming that if you invest a high proportion of your energy mix in renewable sources of energy that you it so facto reduced greenhouse gas emissions by an equivalent amount this is not the case it depends completely what happens in the rest of the economy you take the example of Spain for example Spain for instance Spain has a higher proportion of its energy mix created by renewables than Germany does but has a much more steeply or did have much more steep ascending curve of greenhouse gas emissions because of what was happening the rest of the economy which was a heavily construction based economy involving extractive industries which generate a lot of greenhouse gas emissions it follows from this to be my fourth point that we must have we must have at this point a new model of development and that model of development must build on the discussion happening all across the world about the limits of growth as measured by GDP and the need to deal with a situation in which we're as I said earlier on living in an unsustainable world industrial civilization is nibbling away at the conditions of its own existence we therefore I think have to imagine and think about a different world and it seems to me that in the industrial countries we must have a serious discussion of what growth means we know from the work of many economists that increasing economic growth does not necessarily increase welfare the aim of a society politically should be to increase welfare we've had a report from President Sarkozy Commission but we also had a very interesting one right from the center of British government or close to the center which is the sustainable development Commission if you haven't seen it and you're interested in these things you should check and Tim Jackson's book called prosperity without growth prosperity without growth where he says we don't have a macro economics of sustainability I think that is true therefore I think awful lot of intellectual and practical work has to be done to create one because we're veering on a trajectory which is is a kind of dead-end trajectory to me the same thing also applies to the large developing countries we have to have a new model of development there too and I think having taught myself to both the Indian Prime Minister and Chinese top leadership I think they're becoming more and more aware of this I can see no way in which something like come nearly three billion people can simply track the pattern of development followed in the West even because of local environmental consequences quite apart from climate change much too destructive so I think there is much more of a consciousness that we need an alternative model of development and I think it you know it could be along a kind of mixture of low-tech and high-tech lines that that I mentioned in the specific case of Bangladesh because say you're in an Indian community which still has a strong sense of community do you necessarily want to have supermarkets built outside the city which will have the effect of increasing traffic undermining community connections you have already to me therefore I think we have to think about these things in a serious way so I'm looking for a I sort of revitalization or political theory at this point and my label for this sounds paradoxical everything isn't is what I call utopian realism we have to think beyond the world in which we live at the moment therefore we need a dash of utopianism and political thinking however since climate change is a real issue which has to be addressed in the short as well as the longer term it must be grounded in real trends must be grounded in things that are really happening in the world – I think all over the place one does see examples of this if you take the transition towns movement for example very interesting form of social innovation if for anyone again who's tracking these questions I'd recommend John Aires book that's you double R Y called beyond the car where he argues that we're reaching the apex of a car driven type society because the car was originally instrument of freedom mobility where is that when you're stuck in traffic jams all the time what we're going to see is not just as it were the disappearance of the car but the transformation of transportation systems and he gives many examples from around the world where these are being pioneered on a local level where for example you have smart card systems whereby you can integrate private and public transport and whereby urban spaces are created in such a way that you can radically lessen dependence on the motorcar I think these things are part and parcel of what we as social scientists should now be working on and rather than thinking of you know utopian realism as opposite so I think as as contradiction which one side feeds off the other and if we can't manage this I can't see how are we going to really generate an effective politics of climate change you'll remember that a few years ago Francis Fukuyama said we're at the end of history by much he meant that we can't imagine any kind of society beyond the kind in which we live now or my view is we must imagine such a kind of society but it must have a realistic tinge to it therefore we're not at the end of history we're really effective at the end of the end of history is where we find ourselves now thank you very much for your attention you

If Politicians Won't Take Action, These High Schoolers Will



NOW, WE WEREN'T ON AIR LAST WEEK
WHEN THIS SHOOTING HAPPENED IN FLORIDA. AND LIKE YOU, I WAS SICKENED AND
HEARTBROKEN, NOT ONLY BY THE ATTACK AND THE LOSS OF LIFE, BUT
BY WHAT I FEARED WOULD BE THE COMPLETE LACK OF ACTION BY OUR
LEADERS. AND THAT FEELING WAS QUICKLY
REINFORCED BY STATEMENTS LIKE THIS FROM PEOPLE LIKE MARCO
RUBIO, WHO COMPLETELY ABDICATED RESPONSIBILITY. >> YOU COULD PASS A LAW THAT
MAKES IT HARD TO GET THIS KIND OF GUN IN A NEW CONDITION, BUT
YOU'RE GOING TO STRUGGLE TO KEEP IT OUT OF THE HANDS OF SOMEONE
WHO HAS DECIDED THAT'S WHAT THEY WANT TO USE. I'M JUST TRYING TO BE CLEAR AND
HONEST HERE. IF SOMEONE HAS DECIDED, "I'M
GOING TO COMMIT THIS CRIME," THEY WILL FIND A WAY TO GET THE
GUN TO DO IT. >> Stephen: ANOTHER AS LONG AS
WE'RE BEING CLEAR AND HONEST, SENATOR, AS A
LAWMAKER, YOUR POSITION IS "THE LAWS ARE USELESS. EVERYONE INTO THE THUNDERDOME!"
THEN WHY DO WE NEED YOU? IT SEEMS LIKE A HOUSEPLANT WOULD
DO A BETTER JOB, AND IT WOULD PROBABLY NEED LESS WATER. ( CHEERS AND APPLAUSE )
WE HAVEN'T FORGOTTEN. NO, WE WILL NEVER FORGET. ( APPLAUSE )
BUT THERE IS ONE GROUP THAT DOES GIVE ME HOPE THAT WE CAN DO
SOMETHING TO PROTECT THE CHILDREN AND, SADLY, IT'S THE
CHILDREN. THE STUDENTS FROM PARKLAND,
FLORIDA– ( APPLAUSE )
HELL, YEAH. GOOD FOR THEM. THESE STUDENTS SAW THEIR LEADERS
DOING NOTHING AND SAID, "HOLD MY ROOT BEERMENT." >> MY MESSAGE FOR THE PEOPLE IN
OFFICE IS YOU'RE EITHER WITH US OR AGAINST US. WE ARE LOSING OUR LIVES WHILE
THE ADULTS ARE PLAYING AROUND. >> TO EVERY POLITICIAN WHO IS
TAKING DONATIONS FROM THE N.R.A., SHAME ON YOU. >> YOU HAVEN'T TAKEN A SINGLE
BILL FOR MENTAL HEALTHCARE OR GUN CONTROL AND PASSED IT, AND
THAT'S PATHETIC. ARE YOU KIDDING ME? YOU THINK NOW IS THE TIME TO
FOCUS ON THE PAST AND NOT THE FUTURE TO PREVENT THE DEATH OF
THOUSANDS OF OTHER CHILDREN? YOU SICKEN ME. >> WE'RE CHILDREN. YOU GUYS, LIKE, ARE THE ADULTS. >> Stephen: HE'S RIGHT. THE ADULTS AREN'T CUTTING IT
ANYMORE. I THINK WE NEED TO CHANGE THE
VOTING AGE. UNTIL WE DO SOMETHING ABOUT
GUNS, YOU CAN'T VOTE IF YOU'RE OVER 18. ( LAUGHTER )
( APPLAUSE ) AND IT'S MORE– I'D FEEL BETTER. I'D FEEL BETTER. AND IT'S MORE THAN JUST WORDS. THESE KIDS ARE TAKING ACTION,
ORGANIZING A SERIES OF SCHOOL WALKOUTS ACROSS THE COUNTRY AND
A MARCH IN WASHINGTON. THESE KIDS ARE INSPIRING. THE ONLY REASON I WALKED OUT OF
CLASS WAS TO GO BEHIND THE SCHOOL AND… STUDY. ( LAUGHTER )
TODAY, THESE KIDS BUSSED TO TALLAHASSEE TO ASK LAWMAKERS TO
BEG LAWMAKERS, TO REINSTATE THE ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN, THE VERY
WEAPONS THAT WERE USED TO KILL THEIR CLASS MATES. AND WITH THESE STUDENTS WATCHING
FROM THE GALLERY, THOSE LEGISLATORS PROVED THEY HEARD
THEIR ANGUISHED CRIES AND VOTED NO ANYWAY. WELL, I HOPE THESE KIDS DON'T
GICH UP, BECAUSE THIS IS THEIR LIVES AND THEIR FUTURE. SOMEONE ELSE MAY BE IN POWER,
BUT THIS COUNTRY BELONGS TO THEM. AND THERE IS REASON FOR HOPE. LOOK AT THE #MeToo MOVEMENT. A LOT OF MEN IN POWER DID NOT
SEE THAT COMING. BUT IT PROVED THAT CHANGE CAN
HAPPEN OVERNIGHT. AND THIS IS AN ELECTION YEAR. SO IF YOU WANT TO SEE CHANGE,
YOU HAVE TO GO TO THE POLLS AND TELL THE PEOPLE WHO WILL NOT
PROTECT YOU THAT THEIR TIME IS UP.