(cheers and applause) welcome to the report, everybody. thank you for joining us. >> stephen captioning sponsored by comedy central stephen, stephen, stephen! stephen, stephen, stephen! >> folks, thank you so much, ladies and gentlemen. you know i need it. you know i need it. (cheers and applause) thanks, please, folks. please, folks, you know, thank you so much. thank you so much for chanting my name. jesus himself said man cannot live on bread alone but by every word, just chanted by your audience. folks, let's get straight to the story everyone's talking about.

the nsa knows what everyone's talking about. (laughter) and according to stunning new articles first published by friend of the show and professional blabbermouth glen greenwald in the u.k.'s the guardian the newspaper, the nsa is also engaging in cybersnooping. >> nsa the national security agency has assets to the central servers to some of the top u.s. technology firms through a program called prism, those firms being microsoft, google, yahoo!, facebook, apple, aol, skype, youtube and pal talk. >> stephen: you heard right. they're monitoring pal talk. well, folks, folks, you know what that means. we are this close to learning what pal talk is. (laughter) now this betrayal of our national security comes court see of former cia technical assistance and

nerd trying to look like a cool guy trying to look like a nerd edward snowden. snowden leaked a top secret power point presentation that detailed how the government gathers massive amounts of information on everything but graphic design. (laughter) now folks, this secret program's name prism is an acronym for planning tool for resource integration synchronization and management. incidentally, for revealing prism, snowden may soon be in prison, for, probably, regretting, identifying, self, on, national, tv. now despite being implicated in the power point google denies their involvement saying in a statement that

google does not have a back door for the government to access private user data. maybe so. but when i googled the words back door and private access, i sure found evidence of disturbing probing. and there is only one thing, folks, that i do not like about this whole nsa surveillance. it's happening on president obama's watch. and it's earning him high praise from conservatives. >> when you look at it is as if george bush is back in office. >> when you look at the steps he has taken to fight terror to keep him safe it is much about what george bush started and continued. wiretaps, indefinite detention, keeping guantanamo open, it's drone strikes. i refer to it as president bush's fourth term. >> stephen: shut up, baldy! george w. bush is my hero. he is my role model. he is my designated driver. this guy, this guy is just

imitating, it will make me like him. i don't care how many ball game us take ple to or how many citizens you blow up, you're not my real president. you're just some guy named barry! (laughter) i hate you! (cheers and applause) and folks, while there's a lot of talk about e-mails and phone calls, i am way more excited about the new surveillance devices that they are cooking up. >> it's possible for them to know when i'm using my microwave oven. >> general petraeus when he ran the cia gave a speech that he thought was secret and somebody copied it and made it public that said new mike waves and dishwashers that have computer chips in

there that they can access so they know when yous are using your microwave and dishwasher. >> stephen: i'm not surprised they put surveillance chips in microwaves. we know they already have metal detectors. and we need to know what people are nuking. i mean isn't a microwave bore ito? -- burrito, a, they are foreign and i know for a fact they have explosive potential. but look, folks, look-- (cheers and applause) folks, i can admit that this guardian story does raise a lot of important questions. liberals ask if we are sacrificing too much freedom for security. conservatives ask if we are showing our hand to the terrorists but the guardian asks the most important question of all, could the guardian win a pulitzer for edward snowden's nsa revelations? which leads me to ask, could i win an emmy for my report on the guardian wondering if they could win a pulitzer. (cheers and applause)

and -- >> stephen, stephen, stephen! stephen, stephen, stephen! stephen, stephen, stephen! >> i hope you're voters. and will my morning rerun be eligible for a kid's choice award. should we even be discussing this? well, the president seems to think so. >> now i welcome this debate. and i think it's healthy for our democracy. >> stephen: yes, i welcome it too, very healthy. it's a debate well worth having. the moment we found out about it in 2006. so also let's have a debate about why the gilmore girls were cancelled. because folks, the fact is we had this debate. and we surrendered our rights back when we were properly in the grip of fear. and i know it won't be easy. we've got to dig down deep and somehow find the courage

to stay scared [bleep]. (laughter) because if it really bothers you, folks, there are plenty of ways to avoid this government surveillance. just don't text, tweet, make phone calls, or use pal talk even though i know that's a sacrifice. instead, instead if you absolutely positively need to get a message to a friend, just do what our grandparents did, and use a carrier chicken. all right. all right. simple process, okay. simple process, all right. just send a message to my buddy here, my buddy lou dawg. what's up, what up, lou dawg! things are chill here. can i pop by later for some fried carrier chicken? all right, all right, roll that up there.

right there. there you go. and uh-huh there you go. and go find lou dawg. (laughter) (applause) you see there are always ways to opt out of big brother. here to tell me that there is no way to opt out of big brother is the president & ceo of the national constitution center legal affairs editor of the new republic and law professor at george washington university, jeffrey rosen, jeffrey, thank you so much for joining me. all right. you got this new article in the new republic, available on-line asking president obama to reveal the letter that says why he has the right to do this gathering

to the nsa. what do you have with this-- what's your beef here, sir. what are you hiding that you don't want obama to find out about? well, president obama called for a national debate about the fourth amendment. and i want to participate in that debate by saying as justin-- justice antonin scalia did just this monday, a hero of yours, a conservative. now he's my hero too because he said the framers of the fourth amendment would have been appalled by the idea that the government could seize information without particularly specifying the place to be searched or the person or things. >> stephen: but there is no expectation that your phone records are your records. it was settled in 1979 in a supreme court case that the phone company owns those records. the government is not subpoenaing your records. they're the phone company's records. that allows the phone company to share them with private industry but we were not aware that verizon, for example s sharing the mehtadata, the telephone numbers and duration of my calls with the government on an ongoing daily basis. >> stephen: what's the

problem with that. what's wrong with getting together, as they say, the hey stake, okay, the haystack of information so they can then find the needle in it. are you anti-haystack or pro need snell. >> i am pro fourth amendment and the fourth amendment says you cannot have general searches of information on an ongoing daily basis without particular information that is clinging to a particular climate. >> we are being generally attacked. we are generally under threat. you know, like i say, there was the attack on 9/11 there is the attack at ft. hood, the attack in boston. those are spread out all across the country. you can't just say e it's only going to be in dade county. >> we don't even know if this general data mining works. the senators who were braefed on the program, senators widen and udal said american was be appalled if they knew the patriot act was being used in this way and were not convinced it was stopping serious threats. >> do you think we are vennering freedoms here in the face of terrorist

threat. >> i think not only are we doing that but doing so unnecessarily because you could design these programs in a way that protected priv see and security at the same time. >> stephen: it might be a cunning plan. because here away why. they hate us for our freedom. so less freedom we have, the less likely they are to attack us. (applause) all right from the national constitution center and the new republic jeffrey rosen. we'll be right back.

>> stephen: welcome back, everybody, thank you very much. folks, ladies and gentlemen, as we have already discussed thoroughly tonight the big story is our new national security state. and i am on record as being fine with government surveillance. in fact, i want to go on record right now.

i'm fine with it. (laughter) nothing, folks s out of bounds when it comes to keeping the american people safe. that's why i want to commend the tsa for recently doing what they had to do to foil a high profile fugitive who associates with known smugglers. i am talking, of course, about chewbacca. jim. >> chewbacca in the star wars movies was briefly stopped by the tsa at the denver airport because of his cane which kind of lacks like a light sabre. the tsa says the unusual weight of the cane got the officer's attention. >> stephen: yes, peter mayhew was detained. now you may say this was an unnecessary overreach but i for one am relieved the tsa has finally joined the empire in their fight against the rebel alliance. who we all know-- who we all know will stop at nothing to

overthrow a dually elected emperor palpatine. no, jimmy, my mistake, okay. now some alderaan huggers out there might say that this guy, peter may shoe-- mayhew is merely an actor who played chewbacca in the star was-- star wars movie but think about, it, wouldn't that be the best undercover disduce for chewbacca. don't believe me? just look at mayhew's luggage. and folks t shouldn't be just tsa, all government agencies should be on the lookout for these rebel-- i say i should investigate c-3po. the guy sounds foreign to me. i mean sergio, julio, threepio. could be a space mexican. and health and human services should at least be investigating yoda for fraud. i mean 900 years old?

milking social security, h he-- dry, he is. (applause) right back, we'll be. ññçñ

>> hey, welcome back, everybody. my guest tonight is a "new york times" magazine writer with a new book call wad do

women want? is that mel gibson movie was right it's drunken anti-semites. please welcome daniel bergner. (cheers and applause) what's up, mr. bergner, good to see you. you don't have to get up for me. you are author and contributing writer for "the new york times" magazine and you got a new book here called, what do women want, adventures in the science of female desire. first of all, okay, first of all, what does science or scientists know about female desire, all right? it's all mysterious. it's all intuition. it's all shrouded in mystery and flowers and perfume, right? it's undell ofable. >> science is trying now to pull back that societal veil, pull back all that undell of ability and get at some truth. and so here's one. when it comes to sex, monogamy may be much more of

a problem for women than for men. >> stephen: what you talking about? what are you talking about? >> we've long been taught as you know men programmed by evolution to be promiscuous. >> stephen: yes, exactly, spreading their seed as widely as possible. >> an women to be more geared toward one good man. >> stephen: women are better than men are. see? see. i just got a validation. >> what about that theory where women are better suited to monogamy is too convenient and comforting for men. i think science-- . >> stephen: what? >> because we get to sit back, we get to let our eyes and thoughts roam a bit and be comfortable that our women are really okay about this monogamous situation. science is telling us something very different. >> stephen: buddy, buddy, would you look anywhere else? >> that's science. >> there are exceptions and no doubt if i have the

colbert-- but here's what the rest of us are dealing with. so meredith shivers, fascinating scientists compare wag women say turns them on versus-- versus what their bodies with a little device-- abismograph. >> stephen: what does it do. >> it is a light sense their goes into the nether regions, we say. >> stephen: where the light of science don't shine. >> it measures, here is what she found. one among men examples. so very handsome stranger versus very handsome and of course trusted close friend. women say trusted close friend turns them on more. women's bodies say something very, very different. except, of course when stephen colbert is the trusted friend. >> stephen: yes. >> here is another funny example. >> stephen: so far this isn't funny to me. it's very upsetting. >> it's worrisome. >> stephen: are you just lying to up set me?

or maybe you just wrote this book to get over a bad breakup. >> i have been-- . >> stephen: what is this based on, real science. >> increasing worry but that's my own personal issue as a man but let me just get back to one-- so mostly women in this book but one detour toward monkeys, are close ancestors long thought by scientists that male monkeys, the aggressors and always particularly sexually, you take again the blinders off, the assumptions pushed aside, which science is showing us is no, actually it's the female monkeys who are the initiators. the female monkeys who are doing the objectifying of their objects of desire. >> stephen: wait a second, they taught monkeys about money, basically. they gave them like pills that were worth food and bonobo turned it immediately into a prostitution economy but it was-- they did. but it was the male monkeys giving it to the female monkeys t wasn't the female monkeys going i will give away my food for sex.

the male monkeys were giving away the food for sex. >> and again, so comforting to think that but i-- . >> stephen: i don't buy that comforting. >> one female character in my book, the female monkey actually this is her main gesture in life. and what that means is it means serve me now. so the male monkey. >> stephen: really? >> yeah, and the primatologist i spent time with, every three years he has to switch out the male monkeys. >> stephen: because they are exhausted. >> the female monkeys are too bored to have sex with them any more, they need a new batch. >> stephen: oh, oh. >> yeah, exactly. over and over what we are seeing despite what sort of evolutionary psychology has taught us about those men being promiscuous, women not, is women are equally interested. you stip a-- strip away the danger and stigma in casual sex, and over and over you see these examples of kind of raw or rawer portrait of

female sexuality then we have been willing to see before. i think we have a bit of a fear. >> stephen: and how long will it take me to forget what you told me tonight. >> that depends on your powers of forgetting. >> stephen: your name is again? daniel bergner, (cheers and applause) with disturbing revelations of what do women want. we know, we'll be right back.

>> stephen: s that tea for the report, everybody. good night. captioning sponsored by comedy central captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org yeah, i'm drinking cucumber water right now. i can't believe you got me a four-handed massage. like, i've never even heard of that. that's-- that's way more expensive than anything i would get you, trust me. i have to go, there's like two creepies here. hello. hi. do you guys need me to clear out of here? are you amy? yeah. you have a four-handed massage, yes? we're your therapists. i'm noel. i'm gunth. ( both ) namaste. would you excuse me, just...

one minute? hi, i'm-- i'm sorry. do you have any female therapists available? i think i just assumed they'd be women. no women today. all of our lady therapists are home with period cramps. they synchronize their cycles. but you're in for a real treat. before we get started, are there any injures we should know about? no, nothing i can think of. you have no problems with your shoulders, tummy, booty... no. elbows, ankles, ta-ta's? none of those things. everything's okay. we'll just give you a moment to disrobe. how much should i take off? everything. we wanna touch all of your skin. ( quietly ) all, my skin... we'll be back in just a minute. okay. ( knocking ) are you naked yet? no.

wonderful, we're coming in. jesus! nice. nice what? i was talking to gunth. he's doing a wonderful job. are you tight? you seem really tight. are you feeling tight? okay, are you talking to me or each other right now? ( chuckling ) okay... now we're gonna jam on your lower body. crazy. her legs are exactly the same. okay, what are you talking about? your legs. oh. they're the exact same as our niece's. okay, i'm really having trouble relaxing. would you guys mind just not talking? maybe like just putting on some music? of course... we're sorry. ( chanting ) omm... guys, guys...