Saturday, May 30, 2009

Latino or Hispanic?

Sonia Sotomayor - President’s Obama nominee to the Supreme Court - (in case you have lived in a cave in the last 2 weeks) has been accused of racism by some conservative pundits - Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh to name the most famous ones - for saying:

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life,".

As expected the Republican party is divided between its most extreme wing and its more pragmatic members who understand quite well that the GOP needs the Hispanic vote.. well, excuse my French, the Latino vote…. Well, actually which one is it?

Obviously, Sotomayor refers to herself as “Latina” and while the L.A.Times talks about the “Latino populationthe New-York Times uses the word “Hispanic”. What to make of it? Slate had an enlightening article (Is Hispanic the Same Thing as Latina ?)on this topic :

Hispanic is an English word that originally referred to people from Spain and eventually expanded to include the populations of its colonies in South and Central America. Latino is a Spanish word—hence the feminine form Latina—that refers to people with roots in Latin America and generally excludes the Iberian Peninsula.

While both terms are accepted, they seem to carry different connotations for different people. For some, “Hispanic” is too “Euro-centric”, while for others “Latino, Latina” is not gender-neutral enough.
Well, it gets even more complicated, if you start digging into the history of labeling the Latino/Hispanic population in the U.S.:

In the 1970 U.S. census, for example, people were asked whether they were Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American, or "other Spanish." (The question caused much confusion because many Americans from the middle or southern regions of the United States identified themselves as "Central or South American.")
The word Hispanic was not used until the 1980 census, after the Office of Management and Budget imposed rules standardizing ethnicity statistics. (The change came after a federal committee on minority education complained about the lack of useful data.)
In 1997, the OMB changed its classification to "Hispanic or Latino," explaining that "Hispanic is commonly used in the eastern portion of the United States, whereas Latino is commonly used in the western portion.".
Today the U.S. Census Bureau makes no distinction between the two terms and defines Hispanics and Latinos as “persons who trace their origin or descent to Mexico, Puerto Rico, Cuba, Spanish speaking Central and South America countries, and other Spanish cultures.".

Now of course, as Slate pointed out, what about if you’re from Brazil? You are from South America but not Spanish-speaking…. Ideally, they should be called Luso-Americans and evenhough they may be referred to as “Latinos” they are certainly not “Hispanics”.
In the end, classifying people only makes sense as much as it is about how people perceive themselves or are perceived by others.

It is one problem that the French certainly do not have since in France it is illegal for the state to categorize people according to their alleged ethnic origins or their religious membership. The idea is to avoid possible discrimination but it is also is in line with the non-essentialist French Republican ideal based on the right of the soil and not on affiliation (or bllod right) as in Germany.
This egalitarian approach may be great on paper but it has not stopped racism, and in fact, it may qomewhat make matters worse as it has made it harder for the French to face the reality of racism in France (particularly for people of Arab or African descent). Getting rid of the thermometer has never cured a disease.
Recently, the French government has considered changing the law but that has created so much controversy in France that I don’t think it’s going to happen soon. Old taboos die hard….


Wednesday, May 27, 2009

Les Malentendus

The previous post on the French state strikes at one of the fundamental differences between French and American society, one that lies at the heart of many of the misunderstandings between the two countries: American individualism vs. French solidarity. Understanding this difference is key to representing each other without resorting to caricatures.

This difference of which we write was already encoded in the nineteenth century and being taught in schools in little school books on moral and civic instruction. The American version went by the name of The McGuffey Readers and promoted virtues associated with the "self-made man" especially as it pertained to individual rights. G. Bruno's Tour de la France par deux enfants, on the other hand, taught several generations of French school children the virtues of solidarity in society, in particular one's responsibility to other members of society. Bruno narrativized the republican moral code. Other texts were more explicit about it. The image above comes from the table of contents to Louis Liard's nineteenth-century Morale et enseignement civique. Notice the emphasis on responsibility and duty (devoirs). There is only one section in the entire book on 'rights.' That section starts out by noting that "In exchange for the duties imposed on the citenzry, the citizens must receive from the State a guarantee of their individual rights." Thus does the State exist, to protect these rights. These civil rights are enumerated as freedoms:
1. Individual Freedom: the right to do as I please (in accordance with the laws of the State and the rights of others to do likewise).
2. Domestic Freedom: the right to live where and how I please (in accordance...).
3. Freedom of thought: the right to think/believe as I please (in accordance...)
4. Religious Freedom: the right to believe or not in whatever I choose and to practice these beliefs (in accordance...)
5. Worker's rights: the right to work in whatever profession I choose.
6. Freedom of Association: the right to join my intelligence, work and money with likeminded individuals for a common goal (in accordance...)
7. Political Freedom: the right to elect officials and be elected.
The French emphasis on responsibilities and duties stands in stark contrast to the American emphasis on rights. While the American Bill of Rights was enacted as a guarantor against injurious action by the State toward the individual (thus the emphasis on "freedom from"), the French moral code was predicated on the State's role as guarantor of those rights ("Cette garantie est la raison d'être de l'Etat). The State exists to provide these rights to its citizens. So while Americans tend to view the State with suspicion, the French tend to view it as a protector.
Such a difference helps to explain the vastly different views on many issues including, for example, taxation. Americans view it as the State taking what is rightfully theirs, while the French view it as their responsibility toward a State that provides for all. Entrepreneurship is another area of difference. The American desire "to get the government out of the markets" speaks of a desire for innovation and individual initiative but leaves the individual bearing the risk of failure and corruption. The French approach mitigates risk for the individual (health care, unemployment, social security, etc.) but his potential wealth as well. Hence, the dampening of individual initiative.
This means that in the US the wealthy are wealthier and the poor poorer. The French are generally shocked at what they see as horrible disparities of wealth in the US while Americans often mock the regulation that kills initiative and potential wealth in France. These are the caricatures that pundits resort to because they refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of any other form of society.


Thursday, May 21, 2009

The French and L'Etat.

On of my FB friends had this video on his wall :

Then my friend - we'll call him M - made this comment which really blew my mind :

Why do people vote with their feet and line up behind the US embassy? Why does the US grow faster than France? Why does the US have more millionaires than anywhere else?May seem like small issues but over couple decades to couple hundred years, these small changes will make a huge difference. If we are concerned about preserving civilizations, we should do a better job than France.
It's an issue of where we as humans can propagate memes (ideas) in the most efficient manner and at the same time take advantage of these ideas. only in free societies! at some point the french culture may need to be saved from France.

So of course, I had to say a 'few' things back and decided to go into some details :

  • First of all this woman is an ideologue with a clear agenda. (I checked her out on the internet – quite a resumé). I'dbe curious to see where her figures come from – no source quoted. Some seem ok, others a bit off. But in any case, “per capita income” is rather meaningless. By that account, Lichtenstein or Qatar or Luxemburg has the highest “income per capita”, but what does that mean?
  • Her conclusion that “Americans are FAR wealthier” is just as meaningless. It depends where you are in the social spectrum. Every measure shows that over the last 25 years, those at the top have done better than those in the middle so it is those at the top who have benefited from this new wealth. Your argument that the US has more millionaires is certainly good for those that are, but for the vast majority of Americans, I don’t think they care. In fact, that should be cause for concern.
  • People line up behind the US embassy, but they also do so at other embassies or other wealthy country. What is certain is that the US is more a land of opportunity. I give you that, but it is also a tougher country where you can win big and lose big. So the best part of the video is really when she says that “by any comparison, the American way makes EVERYone better off”, (she insists on “everyone” as you may notice on the video). This must be a joke!

The United States is the country with the highest inequality level and poverty rate across the OECD, Mexico and Turkey excepted. (OECD report)France is one of only five OECD countries where income inequality and poverty have declined over the past 20 years.

  • Finally her use of the argument that “it is one thing to visit France, it’s a whole other thing to live there” is all the more ironic that she lives in the U.S. Besides, since when being born and raised somewhere makes you right about economics.
  • Your concern about “preserving civilization” is mind-blowing…. Where does that come from? What’s your point? It sounds like a Dick-Cheneyish argument of fear.
  • As far as freedom is concerned, there are freedoms other than economic freedom – the freedom to have access to healthcare for instance. What’s your point when you talk when you say “benevolent dictators have delivered better economic results than those that have embraced capitalism.”? What’s the link with our topic here? France is a capitalist country but with more regulations than in the US, that’s all. Now don’t get me wrong, I am not saying that the French model should be followed by Americans. That would be irrelevant. The two countries are two distinct. Comparisons are impossible.
  • Just the way the French generally make false assumptions about the US, you, like most Americans, make false assumption about France. The meaning of the word “état” in France is so particular that it doesn’t translate. It defines the country and is at the core of its identity. “L’état” has not only guaranteed stability and common good (a very important concept in France) in the last few centuries in France, but it actually created France out of a much divided culture. Most countries favored federalism to accommodate the populations, but the French solution was centralization. You may not like it but that’s because it is foreign to you. It is thus part of the French identity and it is a concept entirely alien to Americans (and to most non-French people). (As a result, the French don’t want their politicians to promise tax-cuts, they want that the état do more and better.)
  • By the way, this must not have worked so bad for the French – it is the only European society that never emigrated en masse to America at some point in history, a fact that has been much discussed by historians. I am not saying France is better than the US. It is just different.
  • The French and the Americans have made different choices : The French emphasize equality, (a pillar of the French Republic) and common good, when the Americans emphasize individual freedom, self-interest and prosperity.

There are some things I prefer about the US not because they are intrinsically better but because they suit my personality and my aspiration, and in the same way, there are other things I prefer about France. But comparison requires a level of understanding that most Americans simply can’t have (not speaking French does not help). If you think France is like Communist China or India, think again.


DADT Sucks!

In the last couple of weeks, the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy has made the headlines as it seems that everyday the U.S. army is losing more valuable people simply because they're gay, as if the military could afford to.
  • first a linguist in Arabic, Dan Choi was fired after announcing that he was gay on television. The reason for firing him was that he had "negatively affected good order and discipline in the New York Army National Guard" (ABC News)
.. as if the army had too many translaters of arabic to start with.
  • Then, even more troubling is the case of Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach, a F-15 fighter pilot with nine air medals, including the medal of heroism. The reason why it's more troubling is that it is a cruel situation - this man served for 18 years and was only 2 years away from full retirement. Because of this discharge, he will not even qualify for retirement benefits. (Air Force News)

Don't Ask, Don't Tell is more than 15 years old, society has changed and it is time to repeal that law. I understand that Obama made that promise in his campaign. I also understand that the Obama administration has a lot on his hands, and I can even understand that the president wants to change the law through regular channels (by asking Congress to repal it) for the long run - and clearly that's a break from the previous administration that ignored the law. However, in this particular case, it seems a but of urgency to at least stop implementing it until it has been reviewed.

Jon Stewart had the best argument to give those conservatives hung up on this principle that gays cannot be in the military - play the fear factor, it'll work.

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c
Moral Kombat
Daily Show
Full Episodes
Economic CrisisPolitical Humor


The "French Model" (2) : the Downside...

Like any economic 'model', it's always a trade off, and as the Economist shows it well in their report, there's always the other side of the coin (even if of course, the Economist supports an ideology closer to the so-called 'Anglo-Saxon model', the following facts are undeniable.).
So after the upside in our previous post, (and to be fair) here's the downside :

- More endemic unemployment

A generally disappointing macroeconomic performance, with low growth and high
One reason why French workers are more productive per hour than Americans is that firms employ so few of them. Many make widespread use of rotating interns and temps. France’s jobless rate (8.6%) may now be the same as America’s (8.5%). But, unlike America’s, it never falls much below 8% even in good times.

- Too much dirigism from the top for some things :
The Colbertist engineering culture is on the whole much better at devising and managing big planned projects than it is at dealing with bottom-up ideas and uncertain markets. France lacks start-ups, and its small firms have difficulty growing.
- A discriminating school system (even if it's a bit more complex that the following sentence seems to indicate):
In reality, France has two-tier higher education: its world-class grandes écoles cater to a tiny elite, and its broadly second-rate universities fail the masses. Tuition at universities is free. There is no undergraduate selection at entry.
- More protection and Less dynamism
As for the state as regulator, it may have protected the French economy from extreme volatility, but that goes for the upside too.

A more stable economy in a recession also means a less dynamic, less innovative economy in good times. For all its positive elements, the French model has not yet not incorporated enough flexibility, leaving it with the task of ensuring solidarity, but not the dynamic growth needed to sustain it in the long run.
So in the end, it's just a matter of choice. you can't have your cake and eat it too. My take is that there is no such thing as a 'model' for everyone to follow anyway.
Even if both France and the United-States are essentially capitalistic, each country handles its local economy differently and that's just fine because that's their prerogative. The US will never be France and France will never be the U.S. and in fact, comparisons are fultile since economic systems are also highly cultural (hey're the results of historical particularisms) and you can't expect people to adopt a paradigm that's alien to them. So let's just enjoy this diversity.


The "French Model" (1) : the Upside...

Just a few interesting figures and points found in last week's The Economist, in their report called "Vive la différence"on the French economic 'model'.
First the upside :
[France's] GDP is expected to shrink by 3% this year, according to the IMF, against 4.1% in Britain, 4.4% in Italy and 5.6% in Germany.
The government, usually reprimanded for profligacy, is set to have a deficit in 2009 (6.2% of GDP) well below those in America (13.6%) and Britain (9.8%).

- Living less on credit and borrow what you can pay back :

The French are great savers and most have not taken out unaffordable mortgages or spent heavily on credit. Household debt as a share of GDP is less than half that in Britain or America.
- More equality, less disparity

The income gap between the top 10% and the bottom 10% is far smaller than in Britain or America.
Even Peter Mandelson, a former European trade commissioner whom the French regard as a high priest of economic liberalism, recently turned up in Paris to learn more about what he calls industrial activism. “We have something to learn from continental practice,” he said, identifying French long-term strategic planning in such sectors as energy and transport

- Safety net of l'Etat :

Across France, 5.2m workers, or 21% of those with jobs, are employed by the public sector. If you count others whose incomes or jobs are not exposed to the economic cycle, 49% of those either in work or retired are only moderately vulnerable to the recession,.....

- Better cheaper health system

France’s health system, a mix of private and public provision, manages both to guarantee universal coverage and produce a relatively healthy population for half the cost per person of America’s, and with shorter waiting lists than Britain’s somewhat cheaper version. The French have higher life expectancy than both the British and Americans.

- More regulated banking system .

France’s big banks may have lost plenty of money, but they have certainly performed better than their British or American peers, and most are still in profit. One reason is tighter regulation. Take the mortgage market. French banks have generally been far more wary about lending to homebuyers.

In 2007 French mortgage debt represented only 35% of GDP, according to the European Mortgage Federation, less than in Germany (48%) and way off that in the housing-bubble economies of Britain (86%), Ireland (75%) and Spain (62%). French house prices did rise strongly. But the Bank of France argues that this was as much because of demographic growth, higher real disposable income and limited housing supply as speculative buying.
The French government has not yet had to rescue any big French bank from collapse, let alone nationalise one.
Banks are under a legal obligation not to push borrowers into more debt than they can manage, and cases are regularly brought to court. So caution is built into the system.

What is certain is that the French "model" has raised the attention of the U.S. (granted, mostly 'liberal') media in the last few months :

Time ran an article entitled “How we became the United States of France”. Newsweek published one claiming that “The last model standing is France”. When Christine Lagarde, France’s finance minister, appeared recently on Jon Stewart’s “The Daily Show”, an American comedy programme, she joked that “maybe you are moving in our direction.”


Sunday, May 17, 2009

Europe's New Pecking Order?

Last Week The Economist had a very provocative cover whichI think is worth putting on this blog :

Of course, The Economist has normally always been a pro-free market, pro-globalisation and free-immgration magazine, hence the shock. But this cover, as often with the Brits, should be taken with humo(u)r and a grain of salt (even hough lately, they have indeed been a bit self-critical of their philosophy).
This cover acknowledges some modest philosophical change, but in their editorial, they still claim that with respect to models, Anglo-Saxon capitalism remains the best one.

The strengths that have made parts of continental Europe relatively resilient in recession could quickly emerge as weaknesses in a recovery. For there is a price to pay for more security and greater job protection : a slowness to adjust and innovate that means, in the long run, less growth …

The United States and Britain could rebound from recession faster than most of continental Europe.


Sunday, May 10, 2009

France and Freedom of Speech: the HADOPI case AGAIN!

This is not the first time that we have called into question freedom of speech in France, but this is a pretty 'good' one.

Here's "le premier martyr d'Hadopi." - a man sacked by a French tv channel for criticizing HADOPI to his Member of Parliament(see our previous post)
A Web executive working for TF1, Europe's largest TV network, sends an email to his Member of Parliament opposing the government's "three strikes and you're out" proposal, known as Hadopi. His MP forwards the email to the minister backing Hadopi, who forwards it to TF1.

The author of the email, Jérôme Bourreau-Guggenheim, is called into his boss's office and shown an exact copy of his email.

Soon he receives a letter saying he is fired for "strong differences with the [company's] strategy" — in a private email sent from a private (gmail) address. French corporations and government are entangled in ways that Americans might find unfamiliar. (Slashdot)
This should not be a surprise given the "incestuous relationship" between French president Sarkozy and Europe's largest TV network
TF1's owner, the construction billionaire Martin Bouygues, is godfather to Mr Sarkozy's youngest son, Louis. Mr. Bouygues suggested to Mr. Sarkozy that he ought to ban advertising on TF1's rival stations in the public sector, which was done in January.
Laurent Solly, who was deputy director of Mr. Sarkozy's presidential campaign, is now number two at TF1.
Last year, TF1 sacked Patrick Poivre d'Arvor, the station's star presenter for the previous 21 years. Poivre had angered Mr Sarkozy by saying he "acted like a little boy" at a G8 summit. He was replaced by Laurence Ferrari. Mr. Sarkozy reportedly told Mr. Bouygues he wanted to see the young blond on the news.


France and Due Process : the case of HADOPI.

What would you say if a country decided to create a state agency that would have both judicial and police powers and no accountability?

What would you say if this new state agency could decide to cut off internet connections after 3 warnings without proof or trial simply because your IP address has been pointed out to this high authority by a business group that holds Copyrights and accuses you of illegal downloading?

What about if there was no substantial burden of proof on your accusers to show that you committed the alleged piracy?

What about if you were unable to contest the decision before the connection is cut off and if the contestation did not lead to a suspension of the sanction anyway?

What if there was no appeals process for addressing those piracy accusations anyway?

What if you would not only be cut off from the internet but you’d still have to pay your internet connection to your provider for up to one year?

It sounds like China could be doing this, but, no, it is France, the country of “freedoms and human rights” that is trying to pass this anti-freedom bill called HADOPI (name given to state agency in question). This is of course totally contrary to the way justice normally works in France, where you are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, and where, as in any democracy, the burden of proof is on the accuser.

But then, if you read the details of this bill, you quickly see that the law, if passed, would open the door to loads of issues that would make it hard to enforce anyway – both technically and legally.

Once more the incompetence of this government blows my mind - they don’t seem to have figure it out all those problems before – not even the technical problems. Someone in this government must know that there are always technical alternatives to circumvent the law.

Finally, there is Europe, and that’s no small problem to Sarkozy.
On Wednesday, the European parliament voted in favor of an amendment to the Telecoms Package (by 404 votes, – 57 ‘no’ and 171 abstentions) which goes as follow:

“Applying the principle that no restriction may be imposed on the fundamental rights and freedoms of end-users, without a “prior ruling by the judicial authorities,” notably in accordance with Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union on freedom of expression and information, save when public security is threatened in which case the ruling may be subsequent.”

The problem for the Sarkozy government is that they intended to use a state agency instead of regular judges to cut off “a thousand connections a day” (which would, by the way, leave only 25.20 seconds for the three members of the HADOPI to make a decision). Regular judicial process, on the other hand would not only delay the mechanism (with already overburden judges as it is), and it would also be more costly. That would be the price for due process – a concept used in England since Magna Carta in 1215.

The Telecom Package with the new amendment must still be approved by the European Council of Ministers and France may block it. If they do, it will be another showdown between Sarkozy and the rest of Europe as it will generate delay for a Telecom law that addresses great economic interests. Not something worth a fight given all the other problems generated by the law.

But then, you never know with Sarkozy, he’s so stubborn and cocky that he can be really idiotic about it. That would not be the first time!


Saturday, May 02, 2009

The Torture Debate.

The debate about torture has been raging in the last few weeks in the U.S media.

The most interesting (and real) discussion was between Jon Stewart and Cliff May (president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies) on The Daily Show last Tuesday. The conversation ran longer than the show and an unedited version is available online. It was an opportunity for some great exchanges (see videos below).

One thing to notice is that those who more or less support the use torture - ‘in some cases’ at least -tend to use semantics to divert attention from the moral issue - 'where do you draw the line between torture and duress or coercion' (used for instance by the police in their interrogations) they say?

One of Cliff May’s answers was that water boarding as used by the CIA operatives does not qualify as torture because ... a doctor was present. What kind of argument is that? What about, say, Mengele? He was a physician too, wasn't he? Since when have scientists been a guarantee of moral behavior?

No matter how you cut it, few people of good faith will deny that water boarding IS torture. In this respect, the “torture memos” are fascinating - they are all about semantics and the manipulation of words and concepts. According to the memos, “torture” is constituted by the level of pain that “would ordinarily be associated with a sufficiently serious physical condition or injury such as death, organ failure, or serious impairment of body functions” (see here). No one quite knows where that definition comes from….

Here’s a a more objective international definition of torture (as agreed by the United Nations) :

the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions. (UN)

Thanks in part to Mr Cheney, the topic of torture has mostly evolved around the more “pragmatic” question of efficiency. In fact, that’s where Cliff May tried to go too: wouldn’t you torture to save a thousand lives? The problem is that the assumption that you CAN save a thousand lives by torturing a suspect – a sort of Jack Bauer ticking-bomb situation – is precisely….fiction. Cheney or even Tenet who claim torture works have little - if any - credibility when it comes to truthfulness or even competence:

Vice President Cheney and the administration have mistaken information gathered via torture for valuable intelligence at least once before. In 2002, the CIA turned a detainee named Ibn Shaykh Al Libi over to Egyptian security forces for questioning. Al Libi provided his interrogators with details of a connection between Saddam Hussein's chemical weapons manufacturing capacity and Al Qaeda. (Huffington Post)

If nothing else, history shows that torture does not work, and the French would know something about that. Even, Churchill thought it was not a good idea.

Byt then there is a the legality question. If torture works, then why not make it legal and thus change the law?

The moral argument is definitely the better argument against the use of torture in any discussion you may have. It is one used successfully by Jon Stewart.
Defining where we push the boundaries of torture has nothing to do with the person that we have with custody, it has to do with who we are”.
If a country has values, it is when those values are tried by difficult times that you know the real greatness of a country.
Praise Jon Stewart. He has also underlined the contradiction (that has always been obvious to me and that I’ve died to hear someone say) that if this is a “war on terror”, the suspected terrorists should be treated as enemy combatant.

The most important point is that what is at stake here is no less than the soul of a nation.
As Jon Stewart put it :
The country overstepped its boundaries after 9/11 only to come back later and say that was a mistake. Countries that can do that proved themselves to be great countries.
And indeed it is what made America great after the failure of Vietnam and what can make it great again after Abu Ghraib and Iraq.
Contrary to Stewart, however, I tend to believe that those who concocted this madness should be prosecuted. It may divide the country in the short run but it may be unavoidable in the long run, especially if you consider the legal obligation of any country in breach of the Geneva Convention.

Here are the videos of the discussions between Jon Stewart and Cliff May :

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c
Cliff May Unedited Interview Pt. 1

Daily Show
Full Episodes
Economic CrisisFirst 100 Days

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c
Cliff May Unedited Interview Pt. 2

Daily Show
Full Episodes
Economic CrisisFirst 100 Days

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c
Cliff May Unedited Interview Pt. 3

Daily Show
Full Episodes
Economic CrisisFirst 100 Days