I'm not a fan of Howard but I think his interviews of people are like are some of the best ever. His show is annoying but the guy is a killer interviewer period.

Thanks a lot

Have to say, I just recently came across this Howard Stern guy and I dig his 'ask any question that pops into his head' approach.

Context:
After looking up the title on Youtube ("Dans la peau d'un Noir"), it turned out to be a documentary from 2007 where two French families, one black one white, "switched" their skin colors to experiment with discrimination (or its sudden absence, as the case may be). Its Wikipedia page mention John Howard Griffin's "Black Like Me" as an inspiration.

Additional note which I feel obliged to mention for American viewers: there were no minstrel shows, and so there is no concept of "blackface", in Europe. Of course disguising yourself into some sort of racial stereotype would bring the same type of reaction as anywhere else (or so I hope), but just changing your skin tone would not be considered offensive in itself.

Bah, she's a two faced manipulator who pulled a cheap stunt (ie. crying discrimination/misogyny) because her popularity was in the shitcan. If you saw her operate during the Howard years in opposition, she was one of the most effective attack dogs the ALP had. She didn't allow being a woman to slow her down then, but as soon as the opinion polls fell away, suddenly the mean ol' men are treating her badly... /eyeroll

This is the same woman who doesn't believe in marriage equality...

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/01/julia-gillard-equal-marriage

Discrimination is okay as long as you're not the one being discriminated against... So fuck her and fuck her sniveling "Oh poor me" bullshit. Equality is something everyone should have, not just a convenience to be exploited for political gain.

"The Black Pussy Cat," from W.C. Field's masterpiece, "The Bank Dick," (1940)
..Shemp Howard, bartender.
Cheers

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Matt Damon, Obey, Rule of Law, Civil, Obedience' to 'Matt Damon, Obey, Rule of Law, Civil, Obedience, Howard Zinn' - edited by xxovercastxx

I recommend that Mr. Damon study up. He can start with Lysander Spooner, Henry David Thoreau, Josiah Warren, and H.L. Mencken. After that, he can graduate to Frank Chodorov, Murray Rothbard, Robert Higgs, and few other advocates of free market anarchism, but suffice it to say that, should he wish to have a better understanding of history, he'd better first know of which he speaks. (And no, it's not enough to have been neighbors with Howard Zinn.)

Just in case you missed the vimeo title, as I did, this is an excerpt from a speech Howard Zinn gave in 1970 as part of a debate on civil disobedience.

Thought so too, like, how do you cast a remake of King Kong anyhoo?? Black's character in that film in particular (can't really stand him in most films) suited the director's groove and Black's level of Jack...writing totally sucked, because why? Can't recall a single LINE!!! (close to 3 grueling hours)

@playback-HAH! Portrayed himself perfectly, pulled a Matrix like Reeves

John Wayne as Genghis screams tomes of the inner-workings of the OCD God of ta-tas and aeroplanes, that film was excruciatingly surreal-Howard Hughes flicks and a sanitized hotel suite with theater seats and room service....A freak can dream, can't he?

did he say Glenn Beck lives outside the law??

I may not care for Mr Beck, but as far as I know he's not a criminal.

People like Beck, Jillette, and Howard Stern are ultimately attention cravers. and craving attention doesn't care if you're left or right.

If you gave these people enough money to say an opinion that runs counter to what they actually believe, they'd do it as long as they got their attention. There's an old Daily Show clip back when the Health Care debate first started where Beck was praising the health care system as being second to none, Ole Johnny Stewart easily finds a clip of Beck doing a "documentary" where Beck himself had to go to the hospital and he's complaining about how bad it is. So you just pay these people enough money and you'll get them to say whatever you want them to regardless of what they've said in the past.

he said the same thing in his Howard Stern interview.

Way to go with the Jetporn ya Howard Hughes-lookin' motherfucker!!

Modern Era being say, last thirty-forty years but not the last fifty to seventy though. He's as fantastic a composer for the formulaic music he creates-I agree he ranks among the greats of cinematic composition but his claim to fame being so ingrained in pop culture with Star Wars for me means he kinna squeaked-into the realm of 20th century American composers like Copeland. Bernstein, or Gershwin. I dunno, he's more like a Howard Shore or Hans Zimmer for me, not quite reaching the all-star team of 20th century long-haired first-stringers.

Maybe I'm simply prejudiced against the all-consuming cheese-fog of Star Wars, Lost Ark, Jurassic Park, etc. Maybe I'll try the experiment of listening to one of his compositions without the backdrop of a film. No wait, see I did that-In 77' I bought the double LP of the Star Wars soundtrack (yahhh, I was frikkin' 12) and got bored with it-Never get bored listening to Grofé's Grand Canyon Suite or Ravel's Bolero, though!

...Was that supposed to be poignant, or just an extremely obscure inside joke?

Anyway, this "debate" was a bit ridiculous. Howard Samuels was, as others have already pointed out, very clearly straw manning - at no point was it suggested that opposing party thought marijuana should be legalized for recreational use by big companies.

It should also be noted that while Samuels runs a rehab center and in fact has a personal history of fighting addiction, this also has a negative effect on his ability to form an opinion on this situation. For him, extreme vulnerability to addiction is the norm. He himself is probably very prone to addiction, and he exclusively works with other individuals who are also extremely prone to addiction. I would say that the only people for whom marijuana can be seen as a gateway drug is the sort of people for whom alchohol, caffeine, nicotine, adrenaline or really anything that could possibly be abused could be seen as a "gateway drug."

These are the sort of people who always go too far. They drink too much coffee, they take too many risks, they smoke too much and they are always that one guy who gets embarrassingly drunk at parties because he just doesn't know how to limit himself.

But these people shouldn't be seen as the norm because honestly, they simply aren't.

And because Samuels apparently does think that these people define the norm, his view cannot be seen as being comprehensive. He's only looking at the extreme ends of the spectrum, and even then, he's really only looking at the potential negative extremes, because that is where he used to be, and it's where the people he now tries to heal are stuck.

I'm glad Gupta has come around on his position regarding medical marijuana, and I will be tuning in on Sunday to watch "weed". However what was up with that "debate" ? Gupta thought that medical marijuana was a legitimate medicine and should not be a schedule one drug, and Howard seemed to agree with him. Howards angle was all about not legalizing it for recreational use which wasn't even part of the discussion. They seemed to be talking about two totally different things, or did I miss something?