September 25, 2014 - Steven Johnson

  • Episode: 19159 | 
  • Views: 325,172

The media fixates on President Obama's "latte salute," Jason Jones speaks with activists protesting the Redskins' name, and Steven Johnson discusses "How We Got to Now." 

>> Jon: WELCOME TO THE DAILYSHOW. MY NAME IS JON STEWART.

GOOD SHOW TONIGHT! MYGUEST, A GENTLEMAN BY THE NAME

OF STEPHEN JOHNSON, HE IS AUTHOROF "HOW WE GOT TO NOW,"

IT'S A VERY TIMELY BOOK BECAUSE-- IT IS NOW.

BREAKING NEWS TODAY!

>> ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDERIS STEPPING DOWN AFTER NEARLY

SIX YEARS ON THE JOB.

>> ERIC HAS AGREED TO STAY ON ASATTORNEY GENERAL UNTIL I

NOMINATE A SUCCESSOR, AND THATSUCCESSOR IS CONFIRMED BY THE

SENATE.

>> Jon: SO HE WILL NEVERLEAVE!

(LAUGHTER)BECAUSE NOT ONLY IS

CONGRESS SLOW TO ACT ON ANYIMPORTANT CONFIRMATION HEARINGS

CURRENTLY, THEY'RE BUSY (BLEEP)THEIR PANTS.

>> I.S.I.S. IS A THREAT.

>> THEY HAVE THE POTENTIAL TOHIT US HERE AT HOME.

>> THEY HAVE KILLED THOUSANDS,THEY ARE MARCHING ON.

>> WE CAN'T BURY OUR HEADS INTHE SANDS ON THIS.

>> ACTION MUST BE TAKEN.

>> THIS PRESIDENT NEEDS TO RISETO THE OCCASION BEFORE WE ALL

GET KILLED BACK HERE AT HOME.

>> Jon: ALL OF US KILLED! ALL OFUS.

WE'LL BE THE DEAD AS THE ART OFHOW TO PROPERLY SQUIRE A LADY AT

A COTILLION!

(LAUGHTER)ALWAYS BRING AN EXTRA PAIR OF

GLOVES!

FRUIT PUNCH CAN SPILL!

(LAUGHTER)SO IF YOU'RE FACING AN

EXISTENTIAL THREAT URGING THEPRESIDENT TO ACT, BUT I WAS

UNDER THE IMPRESSION CONGRESSCOULD DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS,

LIKE DECLARE WAR.

>> IF CONGRESS IS SUCH ANEQUAL PARTNER AS IT IS,

WHY NOT WRITE A RESOLUTION OFYOUR OWN.

>> TYPICALLY IN MY TIME HERE INCONGRESS, THAT'S NOT HOW THIS

HAS HAPPENED. THE PRESIDENT OFTHE UNITED STATES WOULD REQUEST

THAT SUPPORT AND WOULD SUPPLYTHE WORDING OF A RESOLUTION TO

AUTHORIZE THIS FORCE.

AND AT THIS POINT IN TIME, WE'VENOT GOTTEN THAT REQUEST, WE'VE

NOT SEEN THAT LANGUAGE.

>> Jon: WE WOULD LOVE TO HELPSTOP THE GREATEST THREAT THIS

COUNTRY HAS EVER KNOWN -- BUTNOT IF IT MEANS WE'RE GOING

TO BE RUDE. WE'RE NOTGOING TO BE RUDE.

THAT WOULD BE GAUCHE.

BUT AT LEAST CONGRESS CAN AGREEON ONE THING --

I'M JUST KIDDING. THEY CAN'T.

(LAUGHTER)>> THE PRESIDENT HAS THE

AUTHORITY HE NEEDS NOW TO ACTAGAINST I.S.I.S.

>> THE PRESIDENT SHOULD COME TOCONGRESS AND ASK FOR

AUTHORIZATION.

>> THE PRESIDENT HAS THEAUTHORITY TO IMMEDIATELY ACT.

>> I THINK THE PRESIDENT HASTO COME TO CONGRESS.

>> I BELIEVE HE HAS THEAUTHORITY TO MOVE ON IT.

>> THE PRESIDENT SHOULD BESEEKING CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL,

PERIOD.

>> Jon: IT'S SO HEARTENING TOSEE CONGRESS USUALLY SO GRID

LOCKED ALONG PARTISAN LINESFINALLY REACHING ACROSS THE

AISLE AND COMING TOGETHER TOGET NOTHING DONE.

(LAUGHTER)OR IS THERE SOMETHING

ELSE GOING ON HERE?

>> I THINK AT SOME POINT INTIME, WHEN WE COME BACK, AFTER

THE ELECTIONS, I THINK THEREWILL BE A CONSIDERATION OF A

LARGER AUTHORIZATION FOR THE USEOF FORCE.

>> Jon: AFTER THE MIDTERMS.

WE'LL DO IT AFTER THE MIDTERMS!

WE DON'T WANT TO DEAL WITH THECOUNTRY'S EXISTENTIAL THREAT

UNTIL CONGRESS DEALS WITH ITSEXISTENTIAL THREAT.

(LAUGHTER)ALL RIGHT.

SO WHAT WE'VE GOT HERE IS ANINCREDIBLY COMPLICATED

CONSTITUTIONAL CONUNDRUMWHICH JAMES MADISON IN

FEDERALIST #51 REFERREDTO AS A TOTAL PIG (BLEEP).

WHICH BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT HASTHE POWER TO TO TAKE US TO WAR?

IS THIS EVEN A WAR AT ALL? ANDIF IT ISN'T A WAR, WHAT IS IT?

NOW IS THE TIME FOR AN ADULTCONVERSATION ABOUT HOW OUR

GOVERNMENT MAKES ITS MOSTIMPORTANT DECISIONS AND

FUNCTIONS IN CRISIS. AND TO LEADTHAT DISCUSSION

I GIVE YOU OUR NATIONAL MEDIA.

>> PRESIDENT OBAMA'S SO-CALLEDLATE SALUTE.

>> HOLDING A CUP IN HIS RIGHTHAND.

>> THE GREAT COFFEE ESCAPADE.

>> COFFEEGATE.

>> PRESIDENT OBAMA IN HOT WATER.

>> SOME PEOPLE THINK IT WASDISRESPECTFUL.

>> HASHTAG LATTE SALUTE.

>> THE COFFEE SALUTE WENT VIRAL.

>> THE LATTE IS BLOWING UPONLINE.

>> Jon: WE ARE SO (BLEEP). IDON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT TO DO.

(LAUGHTER)FIRST OF ALL, WE'RE CURRENTLY

FIGHTING, IF I MAY SAY,SO APPARENTLY WE'RE CURRENTLY

FIGHTING I.S.I.S. AND EBOLA,TWO THINGS THAT ARE LITERALLY

BLOWING UP AND GOING VIRAL.SO, IF YOU'RE NOT GOING TO

COVER THE IMPORTANT STUFF, ATLEAST DON'T USE WORDS THAT

REMIND US OF THE IMPORTANTSTUFF YOU'RE NOT COVERING.

OK, NOW TO BE FAIR, LATTE GATEWASN'T ALL THE NEWS TALKED

ABOUT YESTERDAY. BUT WHERE IMIGHT HAVE GIVEN THE PRESIDENT'S

SALUTE WITH COFFEE CUP ANESPRESSO-SIZED SHOT OF

ATTENTION, THE NEWS CHANNELSWENT FOR THE FULL DOUBLE VENTI

COVERAGE WITH ONE NETWORK GOINGESPECIALLY DEEP.

>> LEARN THE PROPER RESPECT OFTHE SALUTE.

>> IT'S INSENSITIVE.

>> WHAT'S THE MEANING OF IT?THAT'S IT.

>> IT LOOKS TERRIBLE.

>> IT'S OUTLANDISH, AND IT'SDISAPPOINTING.

>> PUT YOUR COFFEE IN THE OTHERHAND.

>> OUR COMMANDER INCHIEF DISPLAYED HIS COMPLETE

DISRESPECT FOR THE MEN ANDWOMEN IN UNIFORM --

>> Jon: SHUT UP! YOU DON'TREALLY CARE!

YOU DON'T REALLY CARE ABOUTTHIS!

YOU HAVE NO PRINCIPLE ABOUTTHIS.

YOU'RE JUST TRYING TO SCOREPOINTS IN A GAME THAT NOBODY

ELSE IS PLAYING. HERE'S HOW WEKNOW.

>> IT'S AN ARROGANCE THAT HEPORTRAYS.

THESE PEOPLE HAVE PUT THEY'RELIVES ON THE LINE.

>> YOU'RE RIGHT.

>> SHOW THE RESPECT, SALUTETHESE GUYS.

>> Jon: SO THE PRINCIPLE HERE ISSHOW RESPECT FOR THE PEOPLE WHO

ARE PUTTING THEIR LIVES ON THELINE FOR THIS FIGHT.

HERE'S ERIC BOLLING ON THAT VERYSAME EPISODE.

>> THE FIRST FEMALE PILOTPILOTING FOR THE U.A.E. DROPPED

THE BOMBS ON I.S.I.S. ONMONDAY NIGHT.

>> WOULD THAT BE CONSIDEREDBOOBS ON THE GROUND? OR NO?

(AUDIENCE REACTS)>> Jon: FIRST OF ALL, FORGET

THE RAMPANT SEXISM IN THATSTATEMENT. SECOND OF ALL,

SHE'S A PILOT, SO WHATEVERGENDER SPECIFIC EQUIPMENT SHE

MIGHT BE CARRYING IS IN THE(BLEEP) AIR. AND THIRDLY,

WHAT WAS THE QUOTE THAT SOMEONESAID EARLIER IN THE PROGRAM?

THESE PEOPLE ARE PUTTING THEIRLIVES ON THE LINE FOR US, SHOW

RESPECT.

SO (BLEEP) YOU AND ALL YOURFALSE PATRIOTISM.

WHEN BUSH TOOK US TO WAR, ANYCRITICISM WAS SHOUTED DOWN AS

TREASONOUS. WHEN BUSH TOOK US TOWAR, ANY CRITICISM WAS SHOUTED

DOWN AS TREASONOUS. BUT THEPRESIDENT YOU DON'T LIKE, HAS

THE COUNTRY POISED ON THE SAMEPRECIPICE, NO TRANSGRESSION NO

MATTER HOW IMMATERIAL ORRIDICULOUS IS TOO SMALL TO CITE

AS EVIDENCE THAT THIS PRESIDENTISN'T AS AMERICAN AS YOU ARE.

YOU WANT A HOT CUP OF COGNITIVEDISSONANCE, WATCH THIS.

>> WOULD PRESIDENT BUSHEVER DO THAT?

>> YEAH ARE WE SURPRISED? IMEAN, AFTER ALL WE'VE GOT A

CHAI SWILLING, GOLF-PLAYING,BASKETBALL, TRASH-TALKING

LEADING-FROM-BEHIND,I-GOT-NO-STRATEGY, OSAMA BIN

LADEN-IS-DEAD, GM IS ALIVE,COMMUNITY ORGANIZING

COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF, HOWDISRESPECTFUL WAS THAT?

>> Jon: YEAH, YEAH NOW WHILEPALIN IN A BALD CAP WAS FEEDING

US A STEAMING BOWL OF LIBERALEPITHETS, HE DRINKS CHAI SO

THAT MEANS WHEN HE SUCKS(BLEEP) IN THE BACK OF A

VOLVO IT HAS THAT CARDAMOMZING. BUT IN THEIR HASTE, THEY

FORGOT TO ANSWER THE QUESTION,WOULD PRESIDENT BUSH EVER SALUTE

THE TROOPS WITH A CUP OF COFFEEIN HIS HAND? AND THE ANSWER IS

NO, BECAUSE HIS HANDS WERE TOOFILLED WITH DOG, A SCOTTY, OUT

OF RESPECT. (APPLAUSE)

SO HERE WE'VE GOT TWO PRESIDENTSBOTH SENDING

THE UNITED STATES TO WAR, CITINGTHE SAME LEGAL AUTHORITIES, BOTH

WITHOUT ANY SEEMING EXITSTRATEGY, AND BOTH HOLDING

(BLEEP) IN THEIR HANDS WHILESALUTING TROOPS, BUT IN THEIR

DISEASED MINDS, ONLY ONE DID ITBECAUSE HE LOVED AMERICA, THE

OTHER DID IT BECAUSE HE HATEDIT.

WE'LL BE RIGHT BACK.

(CHEERS AND APPLAUSE)(CHEERS AND APPLAUSE)

>> Jon: WELCOME BACK!

SO RECENTLY WE SENT OUR INTREPIDREPORTER JASON JONES

OUT TO THE FIELD TOEXPLORE THE PHENOMENON OF A

CERTAIN WASHINGTON D.C.'SFOOTBALL TEAM'S CONTROVERSIAL

NAME. WE LEARNEDLATER THAT SOME OF THE

INDIVIDUALS WHO PARTICIPATED INTHE PIECE, THEY DIDN'T

ENJOY THE EXPERIENCE. (LAUGHTER)

IT'S SOMETHING THAT HAPPENS ALOT LESS THAN YOU WOULD THINK.

BUT WE TAKE THE COMPLAINTSERIOUSLY.

WE GENERALLY DON'T WANT PEOPLEWHO PARTICIPATE IN THE SHOW TO

HAVE A BAD EXPERIENCE.

WE WORK VERY HARD TO FIND REALPEOPLE WHO HAVE REAL BELIEFS AND

WANT TO EXPRESS THOSE BELIEFS ONTELEVISION AND WE WORK HARD TO

MAKE SURE THAT THE GIST OF THOSEBELIEFS ARE RESPECTED

ACCURATELY -- ALBEIT SOMETIMESCOMEDICALLY ON OUR PROGRAM.

(LAUGHTER)IF WE FIND OUT THAT SOMEONE IN A

PIECE WAS INTENTIONALLY MISLEDOR IF THEIR COMMENTS WERE

INTENTIONALLY MISREPRESENTED, WEDO NOT AIR THAT PIECE.

WE WOULD NOT AIR THAT PIECE.

SO THAT BEING SAID, I HOPE YOUENJOY THE FOLLOWING PIECE.

(LAUGHTER)>> FOOTBALL IS BACK, AND ONCE

AGAIN, THE WASHINGTON REDSKINSARE GETTING THEIR ASS KICKED.

BUT THIS TIME INSTEAD OF COWBOYSAND PATRIOTS, IT'S BY LIBERAL

ACTIVISTS.

>> A MOVE IS UNDERWAY TO CHANGETHE NAME.

CRITICS SAY IT'S OFFENSIVE TONATIVE AMERICANS.

>> BUT ACCORDING TO CHIEF DANIELSNYDER OF REDSKIN NATION, THE

ONLY CRIME HIS PEOPLE HAVECOMMITTED

IS BEING MISUNDERSTOOD.

>> THE NAME OF OUR TEAM IS THENAME OF OUR TEAM AND IT

REPRESENTS HONOR, IT REPRESENTSPRIDE, IT REPRESENTS RESPECT.

>> WELL, THAT DOESN'T SOUND THATBAD.

SO WHY WAS THIS GROUP OF NATIVEAMERICAN ACTIVISTS SO UPSET?

>> IT'S A NAME THAT IMPAIRS,DISABLES, DISENFRANCHISES OUR

POPULATION.

>> THE MOST POPULAR MASCOTS INTHE COUNTRY ARE INDIANS AND

ANIMALS.

>> RIGHT.

BECAUSE WE ALL LOVE ANIMALS ANDWE ALL LOVE INDIANS.

>> WE'RE NOT MASCOTS.>> WE'RE NOT MASCOTS.

>> WE'RE NOT MASCOTS.

>> THAT'S A DICTIONARYDEFINED RACIAL SLUR.

>> YEAH BUT THAT'S ACCORDING TOWHAT?

>> THE DICTIONARY.

>> OK BUT PLENTY OF WORDS IN THEDICTIONARY HAVE MULTIPLE

MEANINGS. IT JUST TURNS OUTTHIS ONE DOESN'T.

HELP ME OUT, WHITE MAN.

>> TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT, YOU CANTAKE THINGS OUT OF CONTEXT ALL

OVER THE PLACE BUT IN THISPARTICULAR CASE IT IS WHAT

IT IS, IT'S VERY OBVIOUS.

THAT THE NAME REALLY MEANSHONOR.

>> HONORING WHAT?

>> YOUR STRONG, PROUD,COURAGEOUS, BRAVE HERITAGE.

>> REDSKINS IS A BOUNTY.

>> IT MEANT PROOF OF INDIANKILL.

>> WELL WHEN YOU PUT IT LIKETHAT, IT SOUNDS TERRIBLE.

PUT IT IN CONTEXT ON SUNDAYS -->> AND SATURDAYS AND FRIDAY

NIGHTS.

>> AND MONDAYS.>> AND LIVING IN D.C. EVERY DAY.

>> AND THURSDAY NIGHTS.

>> DO YOU KNOW WHAT IT'S LIKE TOBE A NATIVE IN THIS TOWN?

>> I DON'T. I DON'T. TERRIBLE.

>> TO WALK DOWN THE STREET EVERYSINGLE DAY AND BE SURROUNDED BY

THAT IMAGERY AND BEING TOLDTO GET OVER IT?

>> NO BECAUSE...>> CAUSE, CAUSE, CAUSE...

>> YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO, JUSTBECAUSE I'M UNCOMFORTABLE

DOESN'T MEAN YOU HAVE TO MAKEFUN OF MY UNCOMFORTABLENESS.

YOU DON'T SEE ME DOING THAT TOPEOPLE.

>> SURE THESE NATIVE AMERICANACTIVISTS MAKE A COMPELLING

CASE. THAT IS UNTIL YOUHEAR WHAT IS AT STAKE

FOR THE TRUE VICTIMS. THE FANS.

>> IF THE REDSKINS NAME ISCHANGED AND I HAVE

CHILDREN ONE DAY, WHAT WOULD IPASS ON TO THEM?

>> IT'D BE TOUGH. IT WOULD BELIKE LOSING A FAMILY MEMBER.

>> AND THEY'VE ALREADY LOST SOMUCH, 58 STARTING

QUARTERBACKS, 28 HEAD COACHES,12 UNIFORMS WITH TEN LOGOS,

PLAYING IN FIVE STADIUMS AND TWOCITIES.

THEY EVEN CHANGED THEIR NAMEONCE BEFORE SO FORGIVE THEM FOR

CLINGING TO WHAT FEW TRADITIONSREMAIN.

(SINGING FIGHT SONG)>> SING IT.

>>(SINGING) FIGHT FOR OLD D.C.

>> I HAVE AN OLDER COMPUTER. IPULLED IT UP ON NETSCAPE.

BUT IT SEEMS LIKE YOU DIDN'T SAYTHE WORD "SCALP 'EM."

>> IT ALSO SAYS WHOMP THEM, TOO.

>> OH, SO THE SONG CHANGED.

>> OBVIOUSLY THAT WASCHANGED FOR SENSITIVITY REASONS.

>> AND THE TEAM SENSITIVITYHAS PAID OFF. I MEAN,

RIGHT HERE ON THE HOME PAGE OFTHE WEB SITE DANIEL SNYDER PAID

FOR, IT SAYS THAT, IN 2004, APOLL FOUND THAT 90% OF NATIVE

AMERICANS DID NOT FIND THE NAMEOFFENSIVE.

>> THE ANNENBERG REPORT, THEFUNNY THING ABOUT THE ANNENBERG

REPORT IS THAT IT WASCONDUCTED IN PENNSYLVANIA BY

SELF-IDENTIFYING INDIGENOUSPEOPLE WHICH MEANS IT COULD HAVE

BEEN ANYBODY OFF THE STREET THATSAYS OH YEAH, MY GREAT GREAT

GREAT GRANDMOTHER WAS A CHEROKEEPRINCESS.

>> COME ON. WHO WOULD DO THAT?

>> MY GREAT GREAT GREATGRANDFATHER WAS FULL BLOOD

CHEROKEE.>> SHOW OF HANDS, WHO HAS

HAS CHEROKEE HERE? ANY NATIVEAMERICAN.

BRIAN, WHAT DO YOU HAVE IN YOU?

>> CHEROKEE.

BUT I HAVE NO IDEA HOW MUCH ORLITTLE.

>> RIGHT.

>> I'M ACTUALLY ONE-TWELFTH.

>> ONE-TWELFTH CHEROKEE.

>> AS ONE-TWELFTH CHEROKEE I AMNOT OFFENDED.

>> WHICH MEANT THAT THEREWAS ONLY ONE QUESTION FOR THE

OTHER 11/12. AREN'T YOUBEING A LITTLE SENSITIVE?

>> AFTER EVERY SINGLE THING THATAMERICAN INDIAN PEOPLE HAVE

BEEN THROUGH, HOW CAN YOUPOSSIBLY SAY THAT WE ARE

THIN-SKINNED AND OVERSENSITIVE?WE HAVE TO SAY THINGS LIKE,

CULTURAL SENSITIVITY BECAUSE ASWE SAY RACISM OR RACIST --

>> NO ONE SAID RACIST.>> THE WHOLE ARGUMENT SHUTS

DOWN.>> EXACTLY. NO ONE SAID RACISM.

>> THE TERM IS RACIST.

>> OK, I'M SHUTTING THISCONVERSATION DOWN.

>> OK, SO REDSKI -- ALL RIGHT,THE WASHINGTON TEAM NAME WAS

STARTING TO FEEL A LITTLEINSENSITIVE. WHAT WAS I MISSING?

>> WHAT I WOULD SAY IS, COME TOA FOOTBALL GAME, MEET SOME

FANS, COME SEE WHAT OURCONTEXT IS ABOUT AND I THINK,

YOU KNOW, THERE'S NO WAY YOUWOULD LEAVE THAT OFFENDED.

>> SO I WENT TO A GAME. AND YOUKNOW WHAT, IT WAS TRUE

I WAS IMMEDIATELY WELCOMED INTOTHIS RICH CULTURE,

AND I'M NOT SURE WHAT ITWAS, BUT THE MORE TIME I SPENT

WITH THESE PEOPLE, THE MORE IBEGAN TO FEEL WARM AND HAPPY AND

NUMB AND, THEY WERE RIGHT, THATLOGO IS COOL!

BUT THEN I MET WITH TRIBALELDERS.

>> THIS IS OUR CULTURE.

THIS IS WHO WE ARE.

>> WOULD YOU CALL A NATIVEAMERICAN A REDSKIN?

>> DO YOU KNOW ANY NATIVEAMERICANS?

>> YEAH, ABOUT EIGHT OF THEM.

>> AM I NOT NATIVE AMERICAN?

WAS I NOT BORN IN THIS COUNTRY?

>> I DON'T WANT TO AUTHORIZETHAT.

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

THIS WAS A CULTURE SO PROUD THEYDIDN'T EVEN WANT THEIR FACE ON

TV EVEN AFTER THEY HAD SIGNEDOUR RELEASE FORMS.

>> I WENT TO A GAME.

LET ME ASK YOU, IF YOU BROUGHT ANATIVE AMERICAN,

WOULDN'T THEY BE A LITTLE UPSET?

>> I THINK THE CONVERSATIONTHAT'S HAPPENING RIGHT NOW IS

THAT WE NEED TO BE SITTING DOWN,TALKING TO THE PEOPLE THAT

ACTUALLY ARE OFFENDED.

>> A LITTLE LATER, WE DID JUSTTHAT.

BUT IT TURNS OUT THESE FANSWEREN'T COMFORTABLE HAVING THAT

CONVERSATION.

IN FACT, AFTERWARD, THEY RELAYEDTO "THE WASHINGTON POST" THAT

THEY FELT AMBUSHED, IN DANGERAND DEFAMED AND, YES,

THE CONVERSATION WAS HEATED ATTIMES BUT THERE WERE ALSO

HANDSHAKES AND EVEN THECEREMONIAL HANDKERCHIEF.

IN THE END, THEY SAID THEY STILLWOULD HAVE GONE ON THE SHOW HAD

THEY KNOWN THERE WOULD BEA DEBATE BUT AT LEAST ONE OF

THEM WOULDN'T HAVE WORN HIS REDSKINS JACKET WHICH FORCES THE

QUESTION -->> IF THEY CHANGE THE TEAM NAME,

WOULD YOU STILL ROOT FOR THEM?

>> ABSOLUTELY.

>> UNEQUIVOCALLY.

>> I WOULDN'T HIDE MY REDSKINSMEMORABILIA.

IT WOULD STILL BE ON THE WALLS,THE BELT WOULD STILL BE ON THE

SHOULDER. THEY'LL ALWAYSBE REDSKINS TO ME.

>> THERE WE GO. PROBLEM SOLVED.

HEY, HE WHO STANDS ON THE WRONGSIDE OF HISTORY,

CHANGE THE (BLEEP) NAME. (CHEERS AND APPLAUSE)

>> Jon: JASON JONES. WE'LL BERIGHT BACK.

>> Jon: WELCOME BACK!

MY GUEST TONIGHT, AN AUTHORWHOSE LATEST BOOK, "HOW WE

GOT TO NOW: SIX INNOVATIONS THATMADE THE MODERN WORLD."

IT WILL ALSO BE ASIX-PART SERIES ON PBS

IN OCTOBER. PLEASE WELCOME BACKTO THE PROGRAM,

STEPHEN JOHNSON!(CHEERS AND APPLAUSE)

>> Jon: THANK YOUFOR BEING HERE!

>> AH, MY PLEASURE.>> Jon: HERE'S WHAT I LOVE

ABOUT THIS, IT'S AN INNOVATIVEWAY TO TALK ABOUT HISTORY IN A

WAY THAT WE DON'T DO.>> RIGHT.

>> Jon: THAT IT'S NOT LINEAR.

IT LOOKS AT IT FROM A MACROPERSPECTIVE.

>> YEAH, WHAT WE TRIED TO DOWITH BOTH THE SHOW AND THE BOOK

IS TO START WITH THESEBASIC OBJECTS WE TAKE FOR

GRANTED IN THE MODERN WORLD,LIKE A GLASS OF CLEAN DRINKING

WATER.>> Jon: YES.

>> RIGHT? WE ASSUME WE CAN JUSTGO OVER TO THE SPOUT AND GET

WATER AND IT WON'T KILL US WITHCHOLERA OR TYPHOID

48 HOURS LATER, RIGHT?

>> Jon: RIGHT.>> MOST OF US DO.

>> AND YET, BEHIND THAT ORDINARYOBJECT, THERE'S A 500-YEAR OF

HISTORY OF INNOVATIONS ANDIDEAS AND CREATIVITY THAT

CAME TOGETHER TOMAKE THAT POSSIBLE AND ALL THESE

UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OFTHOSE INNOVATIONS.

AND IT'S JUST A , NORMALLY WETELL HISTORY IN TERMS

OF GREAT MILITARY LEADERS ORPRESIDENTS OR SOCIAL MOVEMENTS.

>> Jon: RIGHT.>> AND THE HISTORY OF ALL THESE

OBJECTS IS IN A WAY JUST ASINTERESTING, I THINK.

>> Jon: AND ALSO NORMALLY, YOUWOULD SEE IT AS A CHRONOLOGY AND

YOU MAKE THE CONNECTIONSAS IT GOES ON. BUT WHAT'S NICE

ABOUT IT IS IT'S LAIDOUT SORT OF ELEMENTALLY,

COLD, LIGHT, YOU KNOW, WATER.

>> YEAH.

>> Jon: AND YOU ALWAYS IMAGINETHAT A SCIENTIST BUILDS EXACTLY

ON THE LINEAR DISCOVERY RIGHTBEFORE HIS,

BUT IT DOESN'T ALWAYS WORK THATWAY.

>> YEAH, YEAH, YEAH. AND THEREARE ALL THINGS WE DON'T THINK

ABOUT AS PROBLEMS. SO, WE'VEGOT A CHAPTER AND AN EPISODE

ON TIME AND CLOCKS.

>> Jon: YES.

>> SO UNTIL THE LATE 1870s,EVERY TOWN IN AMERICA WAS ON ITS

OWN TIME. SO YOU WOULD BEONE TOWN IT WOULD BE 8:55,

YOU'D GO TWO TOWNSOVER IT'D BE 8:57,

THREE TOWNS OVER THE OTHER WAYIT'D BE 9:03.

>> Jon: NO ONE SYNCHRONIZED THEWATCHES.

>> NO ONE WOULD SYNCHRONIZE, ANDTHE THING THAT'S COOL ABOUT IT

IS NO ONE EVEN NOTICED THAT THISWAS A PROBLEM BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T

HAVE ANY NEED TO KIND OF BE THATCOORDINATED IN TERMS OF TIME.

AND THEN THE RAILROADS CAMEALONG. AND SUDDENLY PEOPLE

WERE LEAVING ONE TOWN AT THISTIME, SHOWING UP AT ANOTHER TOWN

THIRTY MINUTES LATER AT ACOMPLETELY DIFFERENT TIME

EXCEPT THE RAILROAD THEY WERE ONWAS ACTUALLY ON BALTIMORE TIME.

AND SO THEY HAD NO IDEA WHATTIME IT WAS ANYMORE. IT WAS JUST

COMPLETELY CONFUSING. AND SOSOMEONE HAD TO

INVENT STANDARDIZED TIME ZONESAND COORDINATE ALL THE CLOCKS

ALL AROUND THE COUNTRY TO MAKETHIS POSSIBLE. AND WE DON'T, I

MEAN, WE NEVER THINK OFSTANDARDIZED TIME AS

SOMETHING THAT WAS EVENAN INVENTION.

>> Jon: RIGHT.>> BUT ACTUALLY THERE WAS

A PERSON WILLIAM ALLEN THATCAME UP WITH IT.

AND WHAT IT MADE POSSIBLE IN THENEXT CENTURY IS THIS, RIGHT?

YOU CAN'T SAY TUNE IN -->> YOUR TiV0, YOUR D.V.R.

>> YOU CAN'T SAY TUNE IN AT11:00 P.M....

>> Jon: RIGHT.>> EASTERN TIME FOR A

SHOW OR A RADIO PROGRAM WITHOUTSTANDARDIZED TIME.

>> Jon: RIGHT. EVEN NOW WITHIN,AS YOU SEE THE DISPARITY

BETWEEN CULTURES, THERE ARECULTURES STILL THAT CANNOT

TAKE FOR GRANTED A GLASS OFCOOL, CLEAN WATER.

>> YEP. ABSOLUTELY.AND I THINK WE REALLY, IT'S

IMPORTANT IN OUR SOCIETY THAT WECELEBRATE THE INNOVATORS THAT

MADE THIS POSSIBLE. RIGHT?WE CELEBRATE INNOVATION ALL THE

TIME IN OUR SOCIETY BUT IT'SALL FOCUSED ON THE 25-YEAR-OLD

BILLIONAIRE OR THE NEW APPLEGADGET AND ALL THESE THINGS ARE

GREAT BUT THE PEOPLE WHO IN THEDEVELOPED WORLD AT LEAST

SOLVED THIS KIND OF PROBLEMARE EXTRAORDINARY PEOPLE.

WE TELL THIS STORY ABOUTTHIS GUY ELLIS CHESBROUGH

WHO IN THE MIDDLE OF THE 19thCENTURY

LIFTED THE CITY OF CHICAGO.IT WAS BASICALLY CHICAGO WAS SO

FLAT THAT IT WOULDN'T DRAINPROPERLY AND SO ALL THIS WASTE

WAS JUST KIND OF ACCUMULATING,AND SO HE HAD THIS IDEA THAT YOU

COULD JUST USE JACK SCREWS -->> Jon: WOULDN'T THEY JUST

PUT IT, DIDN'T THEY USED TO JUSTPUT IT IN THE RIVER, RIGHT?

>> THEY PUT IT IN THE RIVER.

>> Jon: THEY PUT IT IN THERIVER.

>> BUT THEY COULDN'T EVEN GET ITTO THE RIVER.

>> RIGHT.>> AND YOU HAD LIKE PIGS GOING

AROUND AND SCAVENGING. THATWAS THE LIKE WASTE REMOVAL

SYSTEM. >> Jon: RIGHT. RIGHT. RIGHT.

>> LIKE THESE KIND OF RANDOMPIGS. SO HE FIGURED OUT IF WE

COULD JUST LIFT ALL THEBUILDINGS AND ALL THE STREETS

TEN FEET WE'LL ACTUALLY GET ANICE LITTLE SLOPE THAT WILL

ALLOW THE WASTE ANDEVERYTHING TO FLOW INTO THE

LAKE WHICH WAS ITSELF AKIND OF PROBLEM.

>> Jon: RIGHT.

>> AND SO HE DID THIS WITH JACKSCREWS.

HE LIFTED UP AN ENTIREHOTEL AT ONE POINT WITH PEOPLE

STAYING IN THE HOTEL AND THEYWOULD MOVE THE BUILDINGS AROUND

AND IT WAS JUST THISEXTRAORDINARY THING.

AND WHEN YOU WALK AROUND CHICAGOTO THIS DAY YOU'RE TEN FEET

ABOVE THE NATURAL LEVELOF THIS CITY BECAUSE OF

THIS BRILLIANT GUY FROM160 YEARS AGO.

>> Jon: WHAT IF I WERE, LET'SSAY I'M A DIFFERENT BRILLIANT

GUY THERE AND I GO LIKE, LET'SMOVE...

(LAUGHTER)

>> RIGHT, RIGHT RIGHT. YEAH.YEAH.

>> Jon: BUT EVEN WHEN THEY DIDTHAT, SO

ALL THE WASTE WENTINTO THE LAKE AND THAT WAS

APPARENTLY UPSTREAM AND SO THEYHAD TO REVERSE,

DIDN'T THEY HAVE TO REVERSE THERIVER?

>> YEAH. THAT WAS THE NEXT GREATENGINEERING PROJECT

THAT THEY DID.

>> Jon: AND THEY REVERSED THERIVER?

>> IT'S EXTRAORDINARY.AND I FEEL LIKE THIS IS PART OF

THE POINT IS THAT WE HAVE, WEHAVE A WHOLE SET OF PROBLEMS NOW

THAT WE NEED TO SOLVE WITHCOMPARABLE INGENUITY,

BUT WE NEED TO BE KIND OFREMINDING OURSELVES OF THIS

HISTORY AND CELEBRATING THIS. IMEAN, PEOPLE WHO FIRST

CHLORINATED THE WATER.>> Jon: RIGHT.

>> THERE WAS A GUY NAMED JOHNLEAL WHO INTRODUCED CHLORINE

INTO THE WATER IN NEW JERSEY,ACTUALLY,

AND EVERYBODYTHOUGHT HE WAS INSANE.

>> Jon: YOU'RE WELCOME.

>> RIGHT. I MEAN,CHLORINE IS POISON IF YOU DRINK

IT, YOU KNOW, KIND OF --

>> Jon: NOT INNEW JERSEY.

>> EXACTLY. IT'S REFRESHING! (LAUGHTER)

BUT HE ENDED UP CONVINCINGEVERYBODY THAT THIS WAS THE

WAY TO KILL BACTERIA IN THEWATER AND IT CUT INFANT

MORTALITY AND CHILD MORTALITYHALF IN 30 YEARS.

>> Jon: RIGHT. YEAH IT'SINCREDIBLE.

AND WHEN YOU THINGS SEEMDAUNTING AND YOU REALIZE THEY'VE

BEEN DIGESTED, YOU HAVE TO LOOKAT HOW FAR WE'VE COME AND

I THINK IT DOES GIVE YOUOPTIMISM.

>> YEAH.>> THAT INGENUITY HAS A THING

THERE. IT'S ANUNBELIEVABLE BOOK. AND IT'S

SOMETHING, LIKE WATCH THE SHOWTOO WITH YOUR KIDS.

BECAUSE IT'S A GREAT THING TO DOTOGETHER AND THE WAY THAT IT'S

LAID OUT IS REALLY FASCINATINGAND ITS A WONDERFUL THING

TO DO TOGETHER AND VERYENTERTAINING THING AS WELL.

HOW WE GOT TO BE NOW, IT'S ONTHE BOOKSHELVES SEPTEMBER 30th.

PBS SERIES PREMIERESOCTOBER 15th AT 9:00 P.M.

EXCELLENT.

THANK YOU SO MUCH, STEVEN!

>> THANK YOU.

(CHEERS AND APPLAUSE)>> Jon: THAT'S OUR SHOW!

HERE IT IS, YOUR MOMENT OF ZEN.

>> DOCTOR KEITH ABLOW PUTSPRESIDENT OBAMA'S COFFEE CUP

SALUTE ON THE COUCH.

>> AS A PSYCHIATRIST WE MAY SEETHESE THINGS UNFOLDING, THESE

EPISODES OR ANECDOTES WHEREINTHE PRESIDENT SEEMS TO BE AT WAR

NOT JUST WITH OUR ENEMIES BUT ATWAR WITH HIMSELF.

Loading...