*
[Cheering and applause]
Welcome, welcome, welcome to "Last Week Tonight."
I'm John Oliver. Thank you so much for joining us.
All right, just time, just time for a quick recap of the week,
and it began as it seems every week this year
has begun--with claims that Russia was taking
aggressive action against another country.
The search is expanding for what's believed to be
a Russian submarine lurking near Sweden's capital.
Sweden?
I did not see that coming, although if this is true,
I can understand where Putin is coming from,
because who hasn't spent 20 minutes in IKEA
and immediately wanted to launch an attack on Sweden?
"Someone has to pay for what I'm going through here."
But, look, this wasn't just classic Swedish paranoia.
They had proof.
WOMAN: Powerful sonar now scanning beneath these waves
after the Swedes reportedly intercepted an emergency call
from these waters to a Russian base in nearby Kaliningrad.
And there is this--
a photo taken by a passerby outside Stockholm
looking very much like a submarine on patrol.
[Laughter]
Does it look like a submarine on patrol?
Because that could equally be a whale with a toupee,
or a penguin on a surfboard,
or absolutely anything else in the world.
Even the Swedes weren't exactly clear what they were dealing with.
MALE TRANSLATOR: It could be a submarine or a smaller submarine.
It could be a diver using some form of moped-like underwater vehicle,
and it could be divers that don't have any business in our territory.
[Swedish accent] It could even be the legendary shark
that terrorizes Swedish waters.
I talk, of course, of "Yauss."
"Yauss," the monster of the seas.
[Normal voice] Now, look, look, a brief word of caution here.
Sweden has got this wrong before.
In 1995, after suggesting that Russian subs were offshore,
their Prime Minister had to make an embarrassing retraction,
saying, and I quote, "It's a sad fact
"that what was originally stated to be intrusions into our waters
have proved to be minks."
[Laughter] Yes, minks. These minks.
And you know what? Remember that photo from before?
That could absolutely be a mink,
or it could be a submarine piloted by a mink.
We don't know. And if it was, you let them take over your country.
They are pissed when they're angry.
However, I'm sure the Swedish people will stop at nothing
to get to the bottom of this mystery.
The Swedish Navy has called off a weeklong search
for suspected underwater activity.
What, that's it?
You looked for a week and you gave up?
No, no, no, Sweden. That's not how it works.
If you see a fuzzy photo of something,
you let it consume you for the rest of your life.
Scotland has been looking for the Loch Ness Monster since 1933,
and you gave up looking for a Russian submarine
after 7 days!
Hey, in America, most of us spent the last 3 weeks
trying to figure out whether we'd just seen
Ben Affleck's penis in "Gone Girl."
And yeah, yes, yes,
technically, it could have been a mink, but the point is,
we won't stop until we get to the bottom of it!
Shame on you, Sweden! But let's move on.
In New York, we have our own unwelcome intruder this week,
albeit of a tinier variety.
MAN: Breaking news overnight, Ebola in New York.
An American doctor who volunteered
for Doctors Without Borders in Guinea
is in a New York hospital this morning with Ebola.
Yes, much like an actor who considers himself
too intellectual for L.A.,
Ebola has moved to New York.
Now, the patient in question is Dr. Craig Spencer,
who is currently, hopefully, recovering in a hospital here in the city.
On Thursday, public health officials tried to calm people down
by supplying us with a weirdly detailed rundown
of everywhere he'd been, including this.
We know that he went to a place called The Gutter,
a bowling alley in Williamsburg in Brooklyn.
Mmm. Of course he did.
Of course he went to a bowling alley in Williamsburg
because if you're talking about a 33-year-old, white New Yorker
named Craig, you don't have to tell me he spent a weeknight
at a bowling alley in Williamsburg.
It is assumed. That is assumed.
But maybe the most incredible part
of Thursday's Ebola coverage was how quickly things escalated.
Watch how his relationship status was described throughout the evening,
because it changed a bit towards the end.
WOMAN: He had some sort of physical contact
with his girlfriend this morning.
He has a girlfriend, I understand,
who has now been quarantined as well.
Dr. Spencer's girlfriend has been isolated now as well.
MAN: Girlfriend-- WOMAN: His girlfriend--
He has been in close contact with his fiancée.
Mazel tov!
[Laughter] OK.
Two options for what happened there:
one, he was engaged all along;
or two, he got engaged after being diagnosed with Ebola.
And I'm going for the first one, because if you learned one thing
from that press conference, America, know this--
there is no way an attractive Manhattan doctor
is not engaged by 33.
You lock that shit down.
You lock it down.
You lock that shit down!
You put a ring on it and you lock it down!
Meanwhile, for the other 8 million people in this city,
the advice is pretty obvious: Ebola is not airborne,
so there's only one thing we all have to remember.
Now, if you came across some strange mucus or feces
or something out there on the subway, the street,
or anywhere else, you know, don't eat it.
Oh. [Laughter]
That's good advice. That is solid advice.
[Cheering and applause]
Don't eat mystery mucus in the street
until this Ebola panic is over, at which point,
feel free to resume your mucus consumption.
And finally, finally, a quick update on the Supreme Court.
You may remember, last week we talked about the fact
that the Supreme Court bans cameras in the courtroom,
releasing only audiotapes of their oral arguments.
So we decided to assist the news by producing
our "Real Animals, Fake Paws" Supreme Court,
with dog versions of all 9 justices,
plus two lawyers, a duck assistant,
and a chicken stenographer.
Or, as you may say, a "hen"-ographer.
We then gave the footage away on our YouTube page
for the major news networks to use.
None of them did so, because they're cowards who hate the concept of joy, but--
but the Internet at large stepped up in a spectacular way.
Many entire Supreme Court cases are now online.
Thank you so much to everyone who took part.
I just want to quickly single out one contribution
from YouTube username Sam Gross.
To be honest, he broke the rules a little bit
because he didn't use a Supreme Court oral argument.
Instead, he took a different court case with which you may be familiar.
Enjoy.
TOM CRUISE: Lieutenant Kendrick ordered the Code Red, didn't he?
Because that's what you told Lieutenant Kendrick to do.
KEVIN BACON: Objection! And when it went bad,
you cut these guys loose!
Your Honor-- You had Markinson sign a phony transfer order!
You doctored the logbook! Damn it, Kaffee!
JUDGE: Consider yourself in contempt!
Colonel Jessup! Did you order the Code Red?!
You don't have to answer that question.
JACK NICHOLSON: I'll answer the question.
You want answers? I think I'm entitled--
You want answers? I want the truth!
You can't handle the truth!
[Cheering and applause] Ah. Ah.
Moving on, moving on.
Let's talk about--
let's talk about Halloween.
As of tonight, you have just 4 days to find
your inappropriately sexy costume, whether it's
sexy Barney the Dinosaur or a sexy candy corn or,
as "Playboy's" website recently featured, and I swear to you this is true,
a sexy John Oliver costume.
That's right. That... [Cheering and applause]
that is an actual photo of a human woman
dressed up to look like a sexy me.
And the worst thing is, there's more than one photo.
I don't know if I've ever been as confused as I am right now,
although I'm pretty sure that I'm not as confused as Louis C.K. is
about his sexy doppelganger.
That's also real.
Now, at this point, let's agree
sexy Halloween costumes have simply gone too far.
But it doesn't matter because we all know
what Halloween is really about--candy.
Sweet, sugar treats.
This Halloween, Americans will spend $2.2 billion on candy,
although, to be fair, that does include Necco wafers,
which might be better classified as coagulated dust.
But is it really fair to describe sugar as a treat,
considering how much we eat it all year round?
WOMAN: Today, the average American consumes
22 teaspoons of sugar a day,
3 times what we need.
That's equal to 75 pounds of sugar a year
for every man, woman, and child in the United States.
Holy shit.
75 pounds of sugar.
That's like eating Michael Cera's weight
in sugar every single year.
And, look, whilst that's a little less than it was
in the late nineties, it's still pretty incredible,
so let's talk about sugar.
Everyone loves it, and it turns out
that's because we are genetically programmed to.
DR. SANJAY GUPTA: Eric Stice, a neuroscientist
at the Oregon Research Institute,
is using functional MRI scanners to learn
how our brains respond to sweetness.
Sugar activates our brain in a special way
that's very reminiscent of, you know, drugs like cocaine.
Sugar activates our brains like cocaine,
and I've got to say, "Scarface" would have been a very different movie
if it ended with Al Pacino sitting in a chair
sugared out of his mind on baked goods, saying,
"Say hello to my Little Debbie!
Say hello!"
With sugar being so viscerally appealing to us,
it's frankly no wonder that food manufacturers
put it in everything, and I do mean everything.
About 35% of the sugars that Americans consume come from beverages.
But we're also talking about salad dressings and ketchup
and, you know, breads and cereals and crackers,
and the list goes on and on, even to beef and turkey jerky.
We have no idea how prevalent sugar is in almost everything that we eat.
Look at Clamato juice--
the original tomato cocktail with clam.
One serving has 11 grams of sugar in it,
so they clearly thought, "Well, look, let's improve the taste by adding sugar,"
instead of thinking, "Let's improve the taste by removing the clam."
[Laughter]
And none of this would be a problem
were it not for the fact that, as we all know,
excess sugar is probably not good for us.
Both the World Health Organization
and the American Heart Association have warned
against the harms of eating too much of it,
and some studies suggest that too much sugar
can literally mess with the brain.
WOMAN: This rat is perfectly healthy.
Put him in a vat of water, and he finds his way to safety every time.
5.2.
WOMAN: Now, look at this guy.
What he has been eating is the equivalent of a North American diet,
complete with all the fats and sugars we regularly consume.
He doesn't know where to go.
His brain has been damaged.
Now, I don't think that rat is unable to find the island.
I think that rat is saying, "Fuck that island.
"There's no sugar on that island. I want sugar!
[Sniffing] I want sugar!"
[Laughter]
That's a Pixar movie waiting to happen, by the way,
but the sweetener industry is not going to take the findings
of a wet, confused rat lying down.
They are an immensely powerful, $5 billion industry
who fought for decades to project their product's health benefits.
The Sugar Association used to claim their product was a diet aid,
with ads positioning it as a cure for
"the fat time of day," with a woman saying,
"If sugar can fill that hollow feeling,
I'm all for it." Because, yes,
nothing says, "I don't feel hollow inside"
like a woman sitting alone eating straight from a bag of sugar.
Now, the Sugar Association has gotten a little more sophisticated since then.
Here is their current president.
As it relates to obesity, there's been plenty of science
that exonerates sugar.
It clarifies sugar does not contribute
to obesity or diabetes.
Really? [Laughter]
Sugar doesn't contribute to obesity?
I'm not saying it's the only culprit,
but it's definitely one of the key suspects.
Asking what causes obesity is a bit like asking
who killed a first-grade class's hamster.
Sure, they all killed it in a way,
but I think we all know one of them killed it the most.
I'm talking to you, Kevin.
You killed that hamster,
and you drove your father away.
There, I said it. I said it, Kevin. I said it.
Although to be fair-- take him down.
To be fair, there are some scientists
who dismiss links between sugars and obesity.
For instance, this guy.
We take a complex situation like obesity, and we say,
"Well, gee, if we could just cut down on sugar-sweetened beverages
or added sugars in general, that would solve obesity,"
and I think that is a very slippery slope and almost certainly wrong.
That is Dr. James Rippe, who, like Clamato juice,
turns out to contain quite a lot of hidden sugar himself.
He's on the payroll of the Corn Refiners Association--
the corn syrup people--and at one point, he was receiving
a $41,000-a-month retainer from them.
That's half a million dollars a year!
For that much money, you'd expect much grander claims than it doesn't link to obesity.
He should be saying, "My research finds that corn syrup makes you
an immortal sex god with X-ray vision!"
And I'm not saying that corporate money distorts science,
but when researchers looked at two sets of weight-gain studies--
one group with conflicts of interest, like funding from soda companies,
and one group that was independent--
the vast majority of independent studies found
direct links between sugar-sweetened soft drinks
and weight gain or obesity,
and the vast majority that weren't independent
found the exact opposite of that.
Particularly suspicious was a research paper titled "I'm So Delicious,"
attributed to a Dr. Pepper.
[Laughter] But look,
regardless of whether sugar is terrible for you
or the answer to all of life's problems,
shouldn't you at least get to know
when it's being added to your food?
And to their credit, the FDA is trying to take this on.
This week, the FDA is reviewing new nutritional labeling standards,
and that may force food makers to not just list total sugar content,
but how much sugar they're adding to their products.
Yes, the FDA is trying to get an added-sugar category
onto their food labels, which is fine, as long as it doesn't
distract them from forcing Honeycomb cereal to reveal
what in God's name their old mascot was.
What the fuck was that?
It looked like some kind of tumbleweed made of merkins.
But, look, being forced to reveal how much sugar
you are adding to people's food might seem pretty mild,
but there is no way the food manufacturing industry is going to let that happen.
The FDA has been swarmed with letters from every conceivable product,
from the National Yogurt Association
to the National Frozen Pizza Institute
to multiple representatives of the cranberry industry.
Now, cranberries are, I think we can all agree,
nature's most disgusting berry.
Cranberries taste like cherries who hate you.
Cranberries taste like what a raspberry drinks
before its colonoscopy, and the industry knows it.
The head of the Ocean Spray company wrote to the FDA,
saying, "Cranberries are naturally low in sugar,
"giving them a distinctly tart, astringent,
even unpalatable taste."
Yes, that's the head of Ocean Spray,
describing its defining ingredient as "unpalatable."
It's no wonder they want "certain cranberry products
"to be exempted from the proposed
added-sugars declaration," which is tantamount to begging,
"Please don't make us tell everyone how much sugar
we dump on our garbage bog berry."
But the most revealing plea came from the American Beverage Association,
who wrote that if there is to be an added-sugar label,
it must be measured in grams and not teaspoons
because teaspoons are, and I quote, well, teaspoons
"may carry an unfair negative connotation
"that undermines the factual nature
of nutrition information," which is ridiculous.
What negative connotation does a fucking teaspoon have,
unless you're thinking of an annoying dude at a diner
who's always trying to balance one on his nose
or the fact that they're used to freebase heroin?
But neither of those things is the teaspoon's fault.
The only reason the beverage people want sugar
to be measured in grams instead of teaspoons
is that people understand what a teaspoon is.
No one understands the metric system,
which is why this proposed FDA food label is completely missing the point,
because if they really want us to understand how much sugar is in our food,
they need to find a measurement we can immediately grasp.
And that is why tonight we are proposing,
in the spirit of Halloween, that product manufacturers
express their sugar content in the form of candy;
specifically, circus peanuts--
the most disgusting of all the candies.
They taste like an elephant ejaculated into a packet of Splenda,
and there is more than 5 grams of sugar
in each one of these horrifying things.
So what we're saying to companies is this:
keep loading your products up with as much sugar as you like,
on the one condition that on the front of the packaging,
you display how much sugar it contains
in the form of circus peanuts.
So, for instance, 64 ounces of Clamato juice
has 88 grams of sugar, or 16 peanuts' worth.
A can of Campbell's Tomato soup--
5 1/2 peanuts.
A package of 20 circus peanuts--
obviously, 20 circus peanuts.
That goes without saying, but we as consumers
must demand manufacturers adopt this measurement.
So please tweet at them, using the hashtag SHOWUSYOURPEANUTS.
And ask your favorite food manufacturer--
[Cheering and applause] Ask them.
You ask them to whip out their peanuts and present them to you.
And if they say to you, "We don't want to, that's embarrassing,
"nobody wants to see our peanuts,
they're orange and misshapen and bumpy,"
you tell them again, "Show us your peanuts!"
Do it, food makers! Expose your peanuts to the world!
Because if you are going to shove your peanuts in our mouths,
the very least you can do is tell us what we're swallowing.
[Cheering and applause] And now this.
ANNOUNCER: Across the broad expanse of history,
there have been billions upon billions of idiots,
as well as a handful of smart people.
We interviewed some of the latter group for our ongoing series,
"Great Minds: People Who Think Good."
This week's people who thinks good...
[Cheering and applause]
OLIVER: In her twenties, Jane Goodall achieved her childhood dream--
to live with and study the chimpanzees in Africa,
to whom she gave exotic names. Hello, Mike.
At this point, she had no formal training or even an undergraduate degree,
but the discoveries of this daring young woman
revolutionized our understanding of these primates,
starting with this bombshell.
GOODALL: The chimpanzee is actually modifying a natural object
to suit it to a specific purpose, thus making a tool.
OLIVER: That's right, chimps were making and using tools,
albeit pretty crappy tools for a pretty disgusting purpose,
but she also found something else.
GOODALL: Chimpanzees, like humans, have a dark side to their nature.
OLIVER: Yes, Goodall was also the first to show that these peaceful forest vegetarians...
[Chimps screeching]
were actually meat-eating assholes
who frequently engaged in chimpy chimp-on-chimp chimpicide.
After decades in the field, Goodall now spends her time traveling the world
to fight for a variety of causes, with occasional interruptions
to speak with a not-so-smart person.
Dr. Jane Goodall, thank you so much
for taking the time to speak with me.
Well, thank you for inviting me.
You are widely recognized as one of the great experts on chimpanzees.
What makes them particularly so fascinating to you?
I think because they're so like us and, you know, we now know
biologically we share 98-plus-percent of our DNA with them.
Blood system, the immune system, the structure
of the brain--it's almost the same, just our brain is bigger.
And then, for me, of course, it's the behavior,
the fact that they have personalities,
they have emotions like happiness, sadness, fear.
They communicate with kissing, embracing,
holding hands, patting one another on the back,
shaking the fist, they use tools.
Is that what makes them such great pets?
Pets?
They're the worst possible--they're not pets.
I can't even say they're bad pets because they're not pets.
Well, I mean, they're nice acquaintances, housebound friends.
They're not, and what happens--
they're very cute and sweet and cuddly when they're little,
and what happens when they're 5, 6, 7,
and why do people have their face bitten off?
Don't focus on that, though.
Focus on the fact that when you dress them up, they're so funny.
No, they're not.
What about a chimpanzee butler? No.
At no point in your time living amongst chimpanzees
did you think about pulling out a little monocle
and a top hat and a silver tray
and training them to bring you a cold drink?
At no point did I think any such ridiculous thing.
Did you ever put a hat on them? No.
You never put a hat on a chimpanzee?
No. I refuse to believe that.
Well, then we shall disagree for the rest of our lives.
OK. Fair enough.
Let's talk a little about your methods.
They were not without their initial criticisms.
For instance, one point of contention was
that you gave your chimps nicknames.
Why did people criticize that?
Yeah, well, not nicknames. Names, just names.
Just actual names? Yeah, well, I was--
to be scientific, I should have given them numbers.
What's the scientific argument for not giving them names?
Because it's more objective, so if you give them a name,
you're treating them like people.
I'm going to throw some names at you, and I want you to say
if you think they would be a good name for a chimp or a bad name for a chimp.
Ready? Mmm.
Jessica Chimpson.
Yuck. All right.
Dr. Ben Anna Peel, M.D.
Too long.
Fair enough. How about this?
This is a little simpler-- Poothrow Wilson.
That's fine. Right?
Yeah, that's fine. OK, that's good.
So you-- I'd rather have Poothrow somebody else.
Where are you going there? Poothrow
at people that I think need poo thrown at them.
Jane, who do you think needs poo thrown at them?
I'll give an example. I mean, I'm going to pick somebody
like Hitler because he's gone.
Right.
Poothrow Hitler. Great.
Poothrow Hitler is an amazing name for a chimp.
Fantastic. Now, while you were living with them,
you learnt that chimps had specific vocalizations.
Can you tell me a little about that?
Well, if I'm eating something like, you know,
and you want some and you come up to me...
Right. you might beg just like that...
Yeah. but I don't want to give you any, so, "Uh-uh."
"Ooh-ooh"? Pretty obvious.
Uh-uh. Ooh-ooh-ooh?
No, you don't say that. You say, "Ooh."
Ooh, ooh, ooh. Jane, ooh, Jane.
Ooh-- Uh-uh!
Ooh. Uh!
Hey, ooh. Uh.
Ooh. You--ooh. Heh heh!
I ain't giving you any.
I don't like you.
All right, Poothrow Hitler, take it down a notch.
Dr. Jane Goodall,
thank you so much for talking with me.
Thank you.
Let's end this interview in the traditional manner.
Thank you.
You're more than welcome.
I should do it chimp-ways.
[Chuckling]
[Laughter]
And we'd be going,
"Mmm! Ah! Ah! Ah!"
Ooh! Ah! Ah! Ooh! Ah!
Excitement, food. Mmm.
Ah. Uh-uh!
[Laughter]
[Cheering and applause] And finally--
finally tonight...
let's talk about Toronto
because tomorrow morning, they will choose a new mayor.
Now, sadly, sadly,
current mayor Rob Ford--
everyone's favorite walking beefsteak tomato--
is not running for re-election, but don't despair,
for there is another.
Rob Ford has a brother,
Doug Ford, who is running for mayor,
and if you are wondering how alike they are,
please enjoy this little clip.
Whoo!
I gotcha.
I know. Holy--
Oh, good!
MAN: The funny thing is, like all typical siblings,
the goal is, when you're on a seesaw,
to jack your sibling off. Totally.
[Laughter and cheering]
You know what? You know what?
You laugh, but he's right.
On a seesaw, you really want to jack your sibling off.
You want to do anything to get him off.
Beat him. Beat him off that seesaw.
Make him come, right down to the ground
because you beat him off so hard
on that seesaw.
But look, now, to become mayor,
Doug Ford has had some tricky political obstacles to overcome.
For instance, his brother has allegedly used anti-Semitic language in the past,
and Doug was asked about that in a debate at a Jewish high school in Toronto.
I'm going to play you the first few seconds of his response.
You know something? My doctor,
my Jewish doctor, my Jewish dentist... [Audience booing]
my Jewish lawyer, my Jewish-- hold it--accountant--
"Why--why is everyone booing? I love Jews.
"I love everything about you!
"The tiny hats, uh, the big crackers that you eat,
"your weird Christmas candles.
I love it. Why are you booing me?"
Look, it wasn't the best response, sure,
which is why, after having a night to sleep on it,
Doug took a second crack at it.
The Ford family has an extensive relationship,
a great relationship with the Jewish community.
Matter of fact, my wife is Jewish.
Ooh!
How about that?
That is a convenient fact to have remembered,
seemingly in the middle of your sentence.
Unfortunately,
a local reporter then cast doubts on Doug's claim,
forcing Doug Ford to bring out his definitely Jewish wife
to talk about her definitely Jewish heritage,
which went definitely spectacularly well.
My mother's family has Jewish bloodlines.
I don't practice Jude-ism. I never have.
So, listen, she doesn't practice Jude-ism,
hence, I guess, her use of the term "Jude-ism,"
but though her ancestors may or may not have been "Jude-esque."
But, look, none of this matters because by that point,
Doug Ford had moved on to his next scandal,
after being overheard allegedly referring to the journalist
who'd questioned his wife's "Jude-ism"
as "a little bitch," a charge he then spectacularly denied.
I was falsely accused from the "Toronto Star."
I was having a private conversation walking out with two staff members,
and I guess they just assumed
I was talking about someone in that room.
It had nothing to do with anyone in that room last night whatsoever.
"I was talking about a completely different little bitch
"in a completely different room.
"If I was talking about that little bitch, she'd know about it.
Are we done here? Why are you booing me?"
Look, Toronto, I think I speak on behalf
of the rest of the world when I deliver you this message.
Please, please,
elect this man.
Sure, sure, sure,
his brother was fun, but at a certain point,
we felt bad laughing at him,
whereas Doug Ford doesn't have a drug problem,
he's just an asshole,
a non-chemically assisted asshole,
so, please, Toronto, I beg you,
let us laugh at your asshole for another 4 years.
Yours sincerely, everyone who does not live in Toronto.
That's our show. Thank you so much for watching.
We'll be back next week. Good night!
GOODALL: Some chimps can actually roll the tongue. Can you?
Some people can...
You can't. You're one who can't.
What? What does that mean? I don't know.
[Chuckles] What's wrong with me?
Or what's wrong with me? Let's put it that way.
Yeah, let's think of it that way.