The Daily Show: Ears Edition - GOP Wants Greenland Now, Fires Rage in LA, NYC Rages at Congestion Toll

Episode Date: January 9, 2025

Desi Lydic covers conservative media's support for Trump's Greenland invasion idea, Trump blaming Gavin Newsom for the LA wildfires, and Trump's plans for pardoning the Jan. 6 insurrectionists. Josh Johnson hits the street to hear from real New Yorkers about the controversial new congestion pricing toll.  Founding president of the American Institute for Boys and Men and “Of Boys and Men” author, Richard Reeves, sits down with Desi to initiate a national conversation about the issues facing America’s young men. They discuss creating a space for dialogue about men’s issues without blaming women, how the phrase “toxic masculinity” pushes men from productive conversation, increasing the amount of men in teaching and mental healthcare, and how Trump acknowledged men’s issues but encouraged America to move backward.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

You're listening to Comedy Central. From the most trusted journalists at Comedy Central, it's America's only source for news. This is The Daily Show with your host, Desi Lyonis. We've got so much to talk about tonight. The right pretends invading Greenland isn't weird as hell. We've got tips for maintaining your insurrection. And you won't believe this, but New Yorkers are complaining about something. But first, Donald Trump is reminding people

what his special brand of leadership looks like. So let's get into our continuing coverage of Trump 2.0 coming for the White House. -♪ I'm gonna go. -♪ Let's kick things off with President-elect Donald Trump. He's not even on America's payroll yet, but he's already causing chaos for free.

What a workaholic. As you've probably heard, Trump has decided that his first big policy proposal will be buying or perhaps invading Greenland. It's the kind of nonsense no one should take seriously, but Trump said it so I guess we're all doing this. It would be exciting if Greenland was part of the United States. I think that the people of Greenland should be honored. This to me could be Donald Trump's Louisiana purchase. Same size as the Louisiana purchase in square miles.

Greenland, strategically, it makes sense because it's the halfway point between our country and the UK. So it would make sense to have that for war purposes. Yes. War purposes. I'm not exactly sure what that means, but I guess we should annex any place that's halfway between us and somewhere else. This is just so sad. I know she's trying to be supportive,

but you could tell even Ainsley thinks this is a bad idea, and this is a lady excited to marry Sean Hannity. Can you imagine how exhausting it is to treat every one of Trump's dumb ideas like it's a work of art? Oh, sweetheart, what a beautiful drawing. It looks like a Louisiana purchase. I looks like the Louisiana Purchase. I'm gonna put it on the fridge.

But while the Pentagon draws up plans for a war against puffins, Trump is giving us a reminder about what his leadership looks like during times of crisis. Because while everyone else is deeply concerned with what's going on in Los Angeles right now, Trump is handling the tragedy like the statesman that he is. Donald Trump is now weighing in on the horrific fires in Los Angeles County, and he's laying the blame on California's Democratic governor.

In a social media post referring to the governor as news scum and writing, he is the blame for this. Boo! Yeah. Boo! he is the blame for this. Yeah. In the midst of chaos, Donald Trump is taking action by opening up the strategic nickname reserves. Thank you, sir. Although quick question for Trump. Do you mean new scum or

news come? I'm gonna come. Got it. Even though we can't count on the incoming president, some people are stepping up. And it's always heartening to see everybody coming out to help their neighbors. And I do mean everybody. It's an important announcement I wonder if I could just make. Here on Palisades Drive, if anybody has a car and they leave their car, leave the keys in the car. So a guy like me can move your cars

and get them up there so that... so that these fire trucks can get up there. It's really, really important. Thank you. Thank you for talking to us live, sir. What's your name? My name is Steve Gutenberg. Holy shit, Steve Gutenberg? The actor Steve Gutenberg?

Moving abandoned cars out of the way for firefighters? That is amazing, okay? And not only that, but if anyone abandons a baby, he and two other men will raise it for them. Hi, Jinx, Will and Sue. Of course, as great as that is to see, officials are warning that now that the fire has reached Steve Guttenberg, it's only two degrees from Kevin Bacon. Now, if you're wondering why Trump isn't focused on helping Californians, it's because

he's focused on the people who need him most, his insurrectionists. Trump didn't rule out pardons for those who were charged with committing acts of violence on January 6th, 2021. Are you planning to pardon those who were charged with violent offenses? Well, we're looking at it. We'll be looking at the whole thing, but I'll be making major pardons, yes. On the one hand, it's absolutely shameful that Trump would pardon these rioters, but you have to remember these people are his rioter dies.

They stormed to the Capitol, and they shat on a desk for him. No one's ever shat on a desk for me, not once. And I took out a Craigslist ad. For him, it's all about loyalty. Plus, he's going to need a personal army for when he invades Greenland. Those puffers aren't going to pepper spray themselves. Plus, he also wants to need a personal army for when he invades Greenland. Those puffers aren't going to pepper spray themselves. Plus, he also wants to give insurrectionists a little treat.

They must have been so disappointed when January 6 came around this year and they didn't get the chance to riot. But for anyone out there who overprepared for this year's January 6, there are still some options for you. You were ready to storm the Capitol. But then Donald Trump won the election. There are still some options for you. Have too many zip ties? Make a belt to carry your tools. Or create a timeless necklace for your wife. That extra pepper spray can spice up your dinner. Leftover stun gun. Now a car battery jumper. Use a pipe bomb as a dumbbell.

And instead of using that flagpole to beat cops, try using it as a flagpole. That horn helmet is your new coat rack. But keep all that lumber you bought to build gallows, because hanging Mike Pence is always an option. This message was brought to you by your local hardware store. We don't accept returns. Next time we'll discuss how to get vaccines out of your body. Welcome back to the Daily Show.

Winter in New York is always a magical time to freeze your tits off, but this winter, the city is adding something extra special. Tonight, a first in the nation toll called congestion pricing, now in effect in New York City. Millions of drivers paying $9 to access the busiest part of Manhattan, south of 60th Street. Ah, that makes sense.

One clap. One person here thinks that makes sense. That makes sense. If you charge more to drive in the city, the roads get less congested. Who could have a problem with that? It's horrible. Horrible. Tonight, they're coming down on the hard people that are trying to work and make money. I dropped my wife off at the apartment on 60th Street, and I got to pay $9 extra to

do that. I was putting that bill together, see a psychiatrist. See a psychiatrist? This is New York, pal. Everyone's already seeing a psychiatrist. Look, I get it. New York is already a crazy expensive place to live. The only reason I had kids was so I could split the rent with someone. And I guess for some commuters who don't have other options, this could be a real hardship.

But not everyone who's complaining is quite so sympathetic. It really hits home because I live right here on 61st Street in this building. And my car is right there parked in front of my building. And if I want to go to turn around to go uptown to visit my kids who live on 79th Street, I have to pay $9 to go around the block. Well, I guess that's settled. I'll never see my kids again. But driving is not the only way to get across 20 blocks.

You could take the subway or the bus or have you considered legs? Legs, the Ford F-150 of the body some people aren't just complaining they're taking action although not action like taking mass transit I mean action like crime some motorists are coming up with clever ways to avoid those toll cameras planted strategically around the city. This brazen driver removed his plates altogether. Wait, how is that clever?

He just took off his license plate. So that's clever, but when I avoid my taxes by telling the IRS that I'm dead, I'm a wanted felon? Come on. That's not right. I don't think so. Removing the license plates isn't clever. Now covering your car in license plates, that would be clever.

But regardless, don't commit crimes, all right? Because Mayor Eric Adams doesn't need another thing to worry about. Mayor Eric Adams doesn't need another thing to worry about. Mayor Eric Adams laughed off a question asking him to assess how it's working so far. But he also reminded New Yorkers congestion pricing wasn't his idea. I have 99 problems. You know.

99 problems? I think those are called indictments. I don't know if 99 problems is a song people associate most with Eric Adams. I'd go with in the club or club can't handle me or I'm under investigation for bribes from Turkey. Real hip hop heads know that one. Look, I know that this is a big change and I get that there are some drivers who are worried about the safety on the subway. But the more people that are worried about the safety on the subway, Real hip hop heads know that one. Look, I know that this is a big change, and I get that there are some drivers who are worried about the safety on the subway, but the more people who use the subway, the less room the subway masturbators will have to masturbate. So it works out for everyone.

We'll see how it all turns out, although so far the news has been pretty positive. The Lincoln Tunnel moving well. It's almost unheard of at this hour to see that. So it could be that congestion pricing has gotten people off the roads. Look at that. It's working. And yes, it's only been a few days, so I don't want to get ahead of myself, but I'm pretty sure that there will never be any problems in New York ever again. Laughter

Applause Applause Applause Of course, in a city this big, there's bound to be a variety of opinions about congestion pricing. So we sent Josh Johnson to the streets to get some of them. New Yorkers disagree on a lot of things. Yankee sources met, pizza toppings, whether you can poop on a lot of things. Yankee sources, Mets, pizza toppings, whether you can poop on the subway or not.

But now there's one thing ripping New Yorkers apart more than ever. Congestion pricing is official. Drivers are now paying to drive south of 60th Street. I had the beta congestion pricing. How do you feel about it? Not too happy. F*** cars or f*** ingestion pricing? Congestion pricing.

F*** cars. F*** both. F*** the cars. I donestion price? Congestion price. F*** cars. F*** both. F*** the cars. I don't like the idea of all those New Jersey people being taxed so heavily. Do you think that maybe it should go the other way? Maybe New Yorkers should have to pay $9 to get into Jersey. Absolutely not.

Nobody wants to go to Jersey unless they have to. We need cars. Yeah, because cars are very important. Because as a New Yorker, how else are you going to get where they have to. You need cars. Yeah, because cars are very important. Because as a New Yorker, how else are you going to get where you need to be? Besides the subway or the bus or a bike or like a petty cab or the horse-drawn carriage, scooters, segways, mower blades are in again, Solo wheels, piggyback rides,

you know, some nice walking, walking with a purpose. Yeah, yeah, we need more options. You know? They need the money for the MTA. It's supposed to raise $15 billion a year, so, you know, I definitely feel okay for the city doing this. What type of improvements would you have made to the MTA?

Regular service that's completely reliable. Teleportation. Teleportation is actually way more likely than the regular service. The first thing I would love to fix is that we have lights everywhere. I don't have to be afraid to walk in a dark tunnel when I get off of work at night. Okay. I would also like to have them have some people maybe help the people that I see walking around naked.

I'm very sorry about that. That was me and that was a hot day. I mean, maybe they could use some of that might look like some Glade plugins in the subway cars. That'd be a huge improvement right there. I'm guessing because of the crime rate in the subway is probably not the number one priority, is my guess. But if I'm being mugged on the subway and it also stinks,

that's two bad things happening to me at the same time. I want to get robbed somewhere clean. Yeah, I think hygiene is important. One of my biggest hopes is that with less cars, with less congestion, right, it'll make Eric Adams trying to get away from the feds a much cooler chase. There you go. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

He'll be able to breathe. We're talking like born supremacy level chase. So I mean, less cars means less noise. Who would have thought with less noise I can finally hear jackhammers, I can hear sirens, I can hear like, f*** yous and screams and stuff. Yeah. But that's, that's, that's, you know,

that's showing love in New York. Say f*** you. So, you know, I walk around and say f*** you to this camera. F*** you, that's showing love. Yeah, a good f*** you lets you know, now here you are in New York, but you're really alive. Yeah. Before we part ways.

F*** you. F*** you too. Yeah. Yeah. F*** you. F*** you too! Yeah. F*** off. Thank you very much. When we come back Richard and Reeves will be joining me on the show. Thank you. Welcome back to The Daily Show. My guest tonight is the president of the American Institute for Boys and Men, and author of

the book of Boys and Men, Why the Modern Man is Struggling, Why It Matters, and What to Do About It. Please welcome Richard Reeves. -♪ -♪ -♪ -♪ -♪ -♪

Well, thank you for being here. Thank you. I sure appreciate it. Now, this book of boys and men is a reboot of Mice and Men, correct? Correct. So I thought I'd go back to literary canon and turn it into a book with so many charts in it.

Oh, yes. Because you may remember of Mice and Men didn't have any charts in it. Right. This has got lots of charts in it. I was so happy. You made that change. And I've always felt the problem was with the mice. So you corrected that.

You got it completely wrong. Well, I guess none of these questions are going to work. Start from the beginning. You've spent most of your career researching gender inequality, poverty, family policy, and a lot of your research led you to write this book, which was on Obama's reading list over the summer. Congratulations. No big deal. I never thought I would say this, but could you mansplain this issue to me? Absolutely. I'd be very happy to. I should say actually it was very nice that

President Obama did mention it. It was interesting that happened in 2024. The book came out in 2022. I am not going to criticize President Obama right here. Well, he's never been on on trend. OK, so I just wondered if it was took a little bit of a while for the subject area to become almost one that he could talk about publicly, because I think part of the problem here, and this is where I'll start mansplaining, is that I think a lot of people, especially women,

feel like to talk about the problems of boys and men somehow means you've joined the other side. That somehow that means you've turned against women. That somehow to support women's rights and women's concerns about healthcare or the pay gap or the lack of women in politics means that you then can't care about how your son's doing in school,

about your brother's mental health issue, or about your husband's job. And that is insane. But it is the way that this debate about gender is in danger of being framed and has been for the last few years, which is you've got to choose. And if you want to care about women, you're not allowed to care about men. And sometimes the other way around, too. And that's just crazy. But I think it's part of the problem. And so the book and the work, in some ways, I think I saw too many people who were talking about the issues of boys and men doing so that led them almost immediately to say,

and I know who's to blame, the women, the feminists. So if I'm struggling, it's because you're sitting there. Right? It's because you're doing better. And that whole zero-sum frame, I think, is just getting in the way of a better conversation about it, because most people are perfectly capable of thinking two thoughts at once. They can worry about women, and they can worry about men.

But that's not where they are. I'm glad you addressed that, because I think there is that feeling among feminists, particularly in this moment in time, when reproductive rights are in peril, and there's the equal pay pay and all kinds of that. Women are not... the feeling, the immediate gut reaction is, well, let me grab the world's tiniest violin. Like, so sorry. Roll your eyes a bit. Right, or roll your eyes a little bit. But you're absolutely right. And the two things can be true at the same time.

Yes. And I get that feeling. I think it's actually important not to dismiss that feeling. I think that anybody who doesn't find this a slightly difficult conversation, like how do we talk about the rising suicide rates among men, the falling wages among men, the troubles that boys are having at school, how do we do that in a way that makes sure that we don't in any way let up the work we still need to do for women? So I get that. I think it should be a difficult conversation. But just because it's difficult doesn't mean we shouldn't have it. Because someone's having it. Right.

And they're having it online. And I'm afraid that the discomfort that many people have had because of their support for women, in just acknowledging that there are lots of ways in which a lot of men, especially young men, are also not doing great today. Just failing to acknowledge that, it leaves a massive open space for a bunch of other people to come along,

possibly online, and say, you are struggling, that's the women's fault, come to my website or vote for me or whatever. And so the neglect of male problems is not good not only not for men, but in the long run, it's not good for any of us either. It just creates a massive vacuum in our culture and in our politics.

And so I'm very frustrated. I understand the hesitation, but unless you go past the hesitation, have this kind of conversation, the fact that we lose 40,000 men a year to suicide in the U.S. now, and that it's risen most among young men since 2010, the fact that that's a problem doesn't mean that the gender pay gap isn't also a problem.

And I'm sorry, but anybody who says I have to choose between caring about those two things, and I'm only allowed to care about one of them, is no one's friend. And I don't care if on the left or the right. Right? We have to rise together. Particularly in this moment in time, coming out of the election, I think many people thought

that this election was going to be a referendum on reproductive rights and as it turned out it was a referendum on how poorly young people are doing, particularly young men. What do you think Trump's win says about modern American masculinity in this moment? Well I think the first thing is to say of course it was about lots of things. Of course. says about modern American masculinity in this moment? Well, I think the first thing is to say, of course, it was about lots of things. Of course. And we're all in danger of,

like I've written a book about men. And so it's in my interest to say it was all about men. I don't think it was mostly about that. But to the extent we saw a big gender gap among young people, especially in voting. So we saw young women move a little bit to the right, but young men moved a lot to the right in this last election. It's the biggest gender gap we've seen in that generation. What I think what that says is that simply by signaling to men,

especially to young men, we see you, we like you, we're on your podcasts, etc. That was in contrast to a Democrat message that basically didn't have anything for men in it Because it was a sense of like we're the women's party. We're gonna double down on women's rights And again, it's not that that's there's anything wrong with that But if that's all young men heard and then you've got these guys over here saying yeah, we can see you We can hear you and we're gonna go on the podcast that you're listening to etc. Well in the end in politics Something usually beats nothing and on the podcast that you're listening to, et cetera. Well, in the end, in politics, something usually beats nothing. And on the Democrat side, I'm afraid

to say we heard deafening silence on these issues because of that fear that would somehow undermine their claim to be a party that was on behalf of women. And actually, what we need is a political party and political leaders who are on all our sides and who don't frame it as a post-shoot, who care about your son and your daughter. That's right. That's absolutely true.

We can see how the Democrats kind of mis-stepped in that area and there's room for growth. What do you think the conservatives are getting wrong? Their view is that, well, to be fair, what we get right is they have noticed in some way some of the struggles that men have. And they then make the move of saying, and we know why. It's because of women's rights. It's because of feminism. It's because of the rise of women over here

that we've seen the fall of men over here. That is completely untrue. We rise together, or we don't rise at all. We're going to have families together. We're going to make TV shows together. As a society, we can't flourish if either men or women are floundering. We need both to do well.

And so what the conservatives do is identify the real problems, in many cases, of boys and men, and then completely falsely and inaccurately say, that's the fault of women or the rise of women. And so we have to go back. And so the problem to go back. And so the problem is that so many people feel

like there's a right, a reactionary right, that says we need to go back to the way it was when your father was around, your grandfather. Let's go back. Make America great again. Make America male again. Let's bring back the breadwinner male and women who know their place and all of that,

because it was kind of simple then. So they harken back. But on the left there's a sense of like, well actually maybe we don't need men, maybe men are toxic and so maybe you should be more like your sister. And actually if men are given the choice between becoming their father or their grandfather and becoming their sister then no wonder they're lost. And so we have to find a way to talk about masculinity and men and what's happening to them in a way that is entirely compatible with gender equality, that doesn't give any ground at all

on what we need to do for gender equality, but also doesn't say, and I'm afraid people do do this, they say men don't have problems, men are the problem. And if we continue to just see men as problems, rather than also having problems, then it's going to be a very, very difficult time for us over the next few years. You have strong feelings about the term toxic masculinity. Is that just your toxic masculinity speaking? It could be.

It's very hard to know, isn't it? It's impossible to know. Well, I didn't used to be so against it. But actually, what I noticed is that when you go into a conversation with men and you have that deficit frame, right? So it's basically, how can we make you less toxic? Right?

I have a vision for you. You could be a non-toxic man. That's not very inspiring. I've raised three boys to their 20s, and I hope I did a better job of saying, in the future, boys, you might be actually not poisonous. Wouldn't that be amazing? It's such a...

So, actually, it pushes men away from a productive conversation. You put those two words next to each other. And it also has now become so broadened as a term. It used to be used in a very specific way around crime and so on. And it basically didn't exist before 2016. No one had heard the term before 2016. And of course we kind of know why it might have come in 2016.

I wonder what happened in 2016 to inspire that. Well, actually one thing happened in 2016 is that I become a U.S. citizen. Oh, congrats! What a time.S. citizen. Oh, congrats! So I'm... And I... What a time in America. And I think we can all agree how great things have gone. Yes, thank you for that. So I came here, so I've been UK by background. And so it drives men away,

but actually more fundamentally, I think that it gets us into a place where we are just saying, how can we take out the bad stuff from men? And that's in no way, of course, to say that we don't need men to kind of do better and step up. But I think that the idea that masculinity itself

might have something kind of wrong with it is intellectually wrong, but also politically incredibly dangerous. If you want people to really lean into an identity, what you do is you pathologize it. What you do is you say something wrong with being that, and then watch what people do. And so if you want men actually to think less

about their masculinity, parade their masculinity less, perform their masculinity less, don't talk about it as toxic. That's a recruiting sergeant for the reactionaries if you do that. So it's an incredibly ineffective, and I actually think now an offensive term, and we should simply stop using it.

Mm-hmm. Will you walk us through your girls rule rule boys drool theory in your book? I don't think I call it that. Well I think that's how I read it. Is that how you read it? I read it, girls rule boys drool theory. Maybe it was just technically girls rule chapter in your book. I think you're woman-splaining my book.

I might be woman-splaining your book. Tip or tat, tip or tat. Yeah. But, yeah. So in the education system now, we have huge gender gaps favoring girls and women. That's relatively new. I mean, that's happened in the last 20, 30 years. But now if you look at high schools,

like the top 10% of high school students, two-thirds of them are girls. There's actually a bigger gender gap on college campuses today in the US than there was in the 1970s, but it's the other way around. Right, so with 60, 40 female male now on college campuses. And I think a big part of the reason for that is, I'll use your language of rule and drool,

which is that as every parent can tell you, on average, boys just grow up a little bit later. They mature a little bit later. And I'm not pathologizing them for that. Do they ever catch up? I don't know. I don't know. My, the very good chart I have on this in my book,

it only goes up to the age of 25. And we haven't caught up by 25. Oh, wow. But the chart runs out, and it's actually around things like, and this probably won't come as a surprise to anybody, it's stuff like organisational skill. Like, it's stuff like turning your homework in or remembering to pick up your dry cleaning a little bit later. And it's just on the average, like,

men and boys are just not as quite developed. One of the reasons for that, by the way, is that girls enter puberty about a year earlier, and that triggers some brain development. And so the very short version of this, and I'm not a biochemist, so I hope this is basically right, puberty causes this bit of your brain to grow, and this bit of your brain is the bit that tells you

to turn in your chemistry homework, right? So that was a bit of a simplification. But basically what that means is the average 15-year-old girl, 16-year-old girl, is older is the average 15-year-old girl, 16-year-old girl, is older than the average 15-year-old boy in terms of her development. I think that's why we see some of these education gaps now. And the reason we didn't see them before

was because we were so busy holding girls down in the education system that we couldn't see that. But I think as we've made the education system a bit more equal, what we've actually seen is this greater maturity of girls just starts to show up. So what are some tangible solutions that could help fix this problem? Well, in the education system, the thing I probably feel most strongly about is the fact that the cratering share of male teachers has to be reversed.

So since the 80s, we've seen the share of male teachers in our classrooms go from 33% to 23%. There are now more women in STEM than there are men in teaching. The first is great, and we need to do more, but how can we just watch the share of men in our classrooms go down and down and down? My son is actually, who struggled himself in school, he's actually just started working

as a fifth-grade teacher in Baltimore, and I actually just started working as a fifth grade teacher in Baltimore. And I couldn't be prouder of him. I couldn't be prouder of him. But, and he actually, he struggled to go to school when he was at school, so I did remind him that as a teacher, he will have to go. But that's one, and we need hundreds of thousands more male teachers, because I think if we want boys to feel, just as we want girls to feel, that education's for them, that school's

for them, we can't just watch the share of men in our classrooms go down and down and down every year and not do anything about it. And so I applaud the Biden administration's push for a million women into construction. I applaud all their pushes for women into STEM, et cetera. That's terrific. Where are the initiatives to get men into teaching, men into mental health care? Those are just as important,

and we cannot under-represent men in those key professions. And so my son's an N of one. We just need about another million men to get into teaching. I've done my bit. Well, from your lips to God's ears. Thank you for coming on Thank you for having this conversation with me. It's an important one, and but before we go, please consider supporting the California Fire Foundation. They are working on the ground with local fire agencies and community organizations to provide support to residents.

If you can, please donate at the link below. Now here it is, your moment of zen. And David, back to the president-elect's demands to take over the Panama Canal, Greenland, and Canada. Tonight, the prime minister of Denmark, which owns Greenland, is declaring Greenland is not for sale and will not be in the future either. And Canada's Justin Trudeau is saying there isn't a snowball's chance in hell that Canada would become part of the United States.

Explore more shows from The Daily Show Podcast Universe by searching The Daily Show, wherever you get your podcasts. Watch The Daily Show weeknights at 11, 10 Central on Comedy Central and stream full episodes anytime on Paramount Plus. Paramount Podcasts.