of the greats like belushi or mccartly. i like that one. or bill buckley who said he would sooner be governed by the first 100 names in the boston phonebook than by the faculty of harvard university. i ve gob at surt one for you how about brit hewnouston. everyone s got it. it looks like. he would say, what is your pack and about? it s about this. well then it should are e flekt that. he was tough. good. there is a softer gentler brit hume. james, great to see you. likewise. outrage tonight after a group of wounded warriors go to get some rest and relaxation and then the group was attacked by a
of the greats like belushi or mccartly. i like that one. or bill buckley who said he would sooner be governed by the first 100 names in the boston phonebook than by the faculty of harvard university. i ve gob at surt one for you how about brit hewnouston. everyone s got it. it looks like. he would say, what is your pack and about? it s about this. well then it should are e flekt that. he was tough. good. there is a softer gentler brit hume. james, great to see you. likewise. outrage tonight after a group of wounded warriors go to get some rest and relaxation and then the group was attacked by a
to start pinpointing responsibility for the person who provided him the drugs is a search for a scapegoat in a situation that requires a much more careful analysis and thinking. the same thing happened when belushi died and other famous people died. you go after the last person who sold him the drugs. he or she is the one that goes to jail and the problem continues. it is a foolish request. it is not going to make it go away. you are smarter than i am but i will never leave this without saying that the guy who gave an addict the drug that killed him deserves to go away for life. what about the guy that gave the addict the drug that killed him? it doesn t make him any less guilty. they are playing russian roulette. you are playing russian roulette. in this particular case, he
bounds ahead of everyone on that. and the ratings still good on both of those. you take a look at the cast, there are two african-americans on the cast, males, and five white men, one woman, all white, right? was this a necessary move on the part of the producers? did they have to do this? this is a new cast, the ones that were just hired. i m going to answer your question with a question. how many asians have ever been on saturday night live . this isn t about asians, though i understand where you re going. you look at this age of diversity, snl, for six years not to have an african-american woman, not to have an asian woman, not to have anyone. doesn t make it any more doesn t make it any more right because they don t have an asian or hispanic. it doesn t make it right. that s not an excuse. i look at lorne michaels and his track record over four decades, he s discovered more raw talent, belushi, murphy,
diversity, snl, for six years not to have an african-american woman, an asian woman, doesn t make it any more doesn t make it right because they don t have an asian, a hispanic, it doesn t make it right, that s not an excuse. i look at lorne michaels and his track record over four decades, he s discovered more raw talent, belushi, murphy, murray, myers, fallin, fey, mia rudolph. what does that have to do this show has been successful for 38 years because he s not checking off boxes. you mean to tell me in the entire country. there are no women of color in the entire country who are not as just as funny as the five or seven white kids that they just hired? i don t you still haven t answered my question. 38 years, okay? that doesn t make it right.