The Brazen Heads Mark and Derek

Just started listening to these guys and I'm already hooked. This podcast is a good balance of current events, movies/books/art culture, and personality. Mark and Derek give their honest opinions about things that would be too "icky" for mainstream commentators to admit, and sometimes it's nice to hear these things said out loud. You don't have to agree with everything they say to appreciate their point of view.

These guys are so clueless, it hurts. They act as if women were so familiar to them but they just don't have any idea about to behave, AND they feel they can give advice on them. Feminism? lol They aren't even close!

How old are these guys? Fourteen? Eighteen? So badly misinformed on so many things, and so proud of "The Brazen Head's View" for no good reason. Privileged, smug, and for absolutely NO reason.

Save yourself some time and brain cells. I just spent an hour looking for something intelligent, and that's time I'll never get back.

I gave this podcast a 3 or 4 episode trial run and after their opinion(s) about the Chomsky/Harris exchange I was done. They start out by agreeing that Sam Harris is great and that Chomsky is a Marxist with only 2 precepts that have driven his long and distinguished career and that his main frame of reference is material from his friend and colleague Howard Zinn.
Not getting into much detail about the exchange, they mention that Harris makes reference to Chomsky negatively in print in his book, "The End of Faith". They then go on to say that Chomsky's replies to Harris's emails are defensive and arrogant, not mentioning the fact that Chomsky plainly states he has no interest in having the private correspondance publicized. They also don't make the connection, that perhaps because of the inflammatory comments Harris makes about Chomsky IN PRINT, unprovoked, that perhaps Chomsky is entitled to be cautious or even defensive.
They go on to state that Chomsky failed to make any attempt at dialogue about relevant points that Harris was trying to make, which is decidedly untrue, if you bother to read the exchange. I get that they went into this having strong opinions about both people, but if someone who insults you in print emails you and wants to start a dialogue and print the conversation but you say you have no interest in publication, but you graciously continue by arguing the points you've made thousands of times in talks and in print to a guy that is not making very good points in a field (foreign policy) that he's an amateur, you are more than entitled to shut him down or shut him up.