Boots Riley on Bill Maher

[Phalanx]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-9qBY-Bypk

Boots unsurprisingly is the most articulate guest on the show, it's a shame they couldn't bring in some other better informed people.

[trizzonamus]

Yeah Boots and the Coup are at the top of my list for good revolutionary music. Thanks for the find, too bad his Bill Maher and his guests were braindead.

[IcarusAngel]

Bill Maher used to be way more conservative then than he is now. He's actually still conservative on quite a few issues, but at least he puts out a unique opinion. I remember when he had on a Socialist candidate on, and he and Joe Rogan did nothing more than belittle his ideas with no facts. He also had Jello Biafra on once too I believe and did the same thing.

[Pawn Power]

That panel discussion format turns into such a shit show that I don't know if it is the best platform for Boots, though he, for my prospective, clearly made the best points.

[Invincible Summer]

Typical American media "debate" - get one person with "far-left views" and have 4 other guests that disagree with him/her.

Really infuriating.

Also, does "separation of church and state" have anything to go with individuals conflicting w/ state laws due to religion? I thought it was just the separation of church and state in regards to government.

[Robert]

Also, does "separation of church and state" have anything to go with individuals conflicting w/ state laws due to religion? I thought it was just the separation of church and state in regards to government.

What?

"Separation of church and state" is a shorthand term, appearing nowhere in the law or the constitution, that tries to simplify the establishment clause of the First Amendment. It's really not too bad as shorthand, but it gets people all mixed up about what their constitutional rights are because it's imprecise.

The "state" means "the government" globally, not a particular state like New York or California. Is that what you're asking?

I don't understand "anything to go with individuals conflicting w/ state laws due to religion." (And why the italics?) If individuals have an argument with a state law that impinges their right to practice religion, then yes, the First Amendment (what you'd call "separation of church and state") offers them relief in some cases.

Your last sentence "I thought it was just the separation of church and state in regards to government" I'm not sure I understand; the "separation" you are referencing means the government cannot establish a national religion like "The Church of England" (why do the English put up with this?) or enact laws on religious grounds, such as making Easter a national holiday or require government employees to read the Bible.

Don't ask why Christmas survives as a state holiday in the USA. There's no good answer. It should be abolished in favor of a winter solstice holiday, which would fall on about the same day anyway.

[Invincible Summer]

What?

"Separation of church and state" is a shorthand term, appearing nowhere in the law or the constitution, that tries to simplify the establishment clause of the First Amendment. It's really not too bad as shorthand, but it gets people all mixed up about what their constitutional rights are because it's imprecise.

The "state" means "the government" globally, not a particular state like New York or California. Is that what you're asking?
No I understand that it means the government.



I don't understand "anything to go with individuals conflicting w/ state laws due to religion." (And why the italics?) If individuals have an argument with a state law that impinges their right to practice religion, then yes, the First Amendment (what you'd call "separation of church and state") offers them relief in some cases.
What I'm referring to is in the video, they argue about how Muslim women who wear the veil should have to take it off for gov't ID, and then they bring in how it's required due to the "separation of church and state."

I didn't think that "separation of church and state" had anything to do w/ ensuring that an individual's religion does not conflict w/ government law; i thought it only had to do with the government not being able to establish a state religion, etc as you stated here:


the government cannot establish a national religion like "The Church of England" (why do the English put up with this?) or enact laws on religious grounds, such as making Easter a national holiday or require government employees to read the Bible.


So basically, what the people were arguing in regards to the veil being "against" the idea of "separation of church and state" was false?

[mikelepore]

I didn't think that "separation of church and state" had anything to do w/ ensuring that an individual's religion does not conflict w/ government law; i thought it only had to do with the government not being able to establish a state religion, etc

In the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution, it's the other part of the sentence -- "nor prohibit the free exercise thereof" -- that gets cited to make religious practices come first. For example, during Prohibition, the government allowed Christian churches to use wine during church services. (Of course, the hypocrisy is always there, because this will only be done for a "recognized" or "valid" religion.)

[mikelepore]

Bill Maher used to be way more conservative then than he is now. He's actually still conservative on quite a few issues, but at least he puts out a unique opinion.

Bill Mahar is irritating me, the way he keeps saying that fixing capitalism is the only consideration, since "the other thing" (all conceptions of socialism put into one bucket) have "proven to be a failure". Does anyone have an email address for him? We should get a lot of people to bombard him with emails pointing out that many possible forms of democratic self-management by the workers have never been given a fair trial. If we can get him to acknowledge this fact to his audience of millions, it will be a big boost for the left.

[GPDP]

Bill Mahar is irritating me, the way he keeps saying that fixing capitalism is the only consideration, since "the other thing" (all conceptions of socialism put into one bucket) have "proven to be a failure". Does anyone have an email address for him? We should get a lot of people to bombard him with emails pointing out that many possible forms of democratic self-management by the workers have never been given a fair trial. If we can get him to acknowledge this fact to his audience of millions, it will be a big boost for the left.

Even if he were to recognize such forms of socialism, I doubt he would actually advocate them. The guy sounds like a thoroughly convinced reformist capitalist to me. He is not a leftist in any meaningful sense.

[Robert]

Muslim women who wear the veil should have to take it off for gov't ID, and then they bring in how it's required due to the "separation of church and state."

The reason the government requires removal of the veil, like when taking a drivers license photo, is for national security reasons, not constitutional reasons. The Muslims can then try to complain that it violates the free exercise clause of the constitution (the other part of the first amendment, which is like a corollary of the establishment clause), but neither argument has much to do with the establishment (separation of church and state) in my view.

That's what the Florida courts (thank god) have said so far: The 5th District Court of Appeal in Daytona Beach upheld an Orlando civil trial court's decision that enforcing the full face photo requirement did not violate the state's Religious Freedom Restoration Act, because forcing Sultaana Freeman's compliance of the law did not place a substantial burden on her free exercise of religion. http://www.beliefnet.com/News/2005/09/Florida-Court-Rules-Against-Veil-On-License-Photo.aspx


That's a state law they were measuring the veil against, not the constitution, but I think the result would likely be the same if brought in federal court.

But the constitution is a vague and imprecise document in many ways and you are as free to interpret it as anyone else.

[Das war einmal]

That annoying guy was a 'comedian'?! Looks likes there is not much to laugh about in the USA. For the rest of this shit fest, not letting a man finish his sentences, interrupting and moving to commercials, yeah nice way to say you really hate freedom of speech when there is actually someone who has a total different opinion. All the dumb cliches have been repeated (greed=human nature, communism didnt work look at USSR). You would expect better but then again...

[Das war einmal]

That panel discussion format turns into such a shit show that I don't know if it is the best platform for Boots, though he, for my prospective, clearly made the best points.


Only a neocon redneck would get his kicks on from this show, everyone with a little decency would agree that Boots really kept cool despite the degenerate and humiliating attitude of the rest.

[GPDP]

Only a neocon redneck would get his kicks on from this show, everyone with a little decency would agree that Boots really kept cool despite the degenerate and humiliating attitude of the rest.

Actually, Bill Maher is pretty much as left as they come in the mainstream media. Well, Michael Moore is probably a little bit further left, but he doesn't have his own show like Maher does. In any case, most neocons would probably consider Maher a socialist by their standards. Maher is big with left-liberals and "moderates".

Again, the fact that Maher is about as left as it gets by "acceptable" mainstream media standards really says something about how shit the media really is in this country.

[Dejavu]

I applaud some of Bill Maher's work.
I don't think he can really be classified as what most would consider a 'Leftist' or a 'Rightist.' I don't think its extremely important anyway. Maher clearly has some libertarian tendencies that I think most of us can identify with here.

His dual support of Obama and Ron Paul sort of baffled me in a sense since RP and Obama have totally different and diverging views, or at least on the surface they do.

I think Maher sides with the Left in terms of an anti-authoritarian position in peoples' personal lives but is skeptical of the same Left when it comes to their seemingly authoritarian preference for internal social organization and I think he starts to take a more libertarian line.

Maher is also skeptical of religion and support of religion is typically identified with the Right which might , by default , make him more of a 'Leftist' just like many atheists are considered 'Leftists' because of their anti or a religious position.

Overall, Maher has his faults , of course but by far he is not the worst of the bunch and everynow and then, by accident or by intention, produces work that promotes what libertarians and anarchists would consider supportive of freedom.

[Das war einmal]

Actually, Bill Maher is pretty much as left as they come in the mainstream media. Well, Michael Moore is probably a little bit further left, but he doesn't have his own show like Maher does. In any case, most neocons would probably consider Maher a socialist by their standards. Maher is big with left-liberals and "moderates".

Again, the fact that Maher is about as left as it gets by "acceptable" mainstream media standards really says something about how shit the media really is in this country.


Yeah I guess so, but then again, when a comrade of my was giving an interview on a radio program that has a greenleft of center character, the host said something similar (not the greed is human nature part but the look at history)


I dont know this Maher, only gave my opinion on that what I saw and I was disgusted

[skki]

Maher is the only person in the mainstream media who will get a Marxist on to participate in a discussion like this. We have to give credit where it's due.

He's had a large list of prominent Socialists on his show, who have been largely ignored by mainstream media outlets. Noam Chomsky for example, can never get dedicated time anywhere else.

[GPDP]

Maher is the only person in the mainstream media who will get a Marxist on to participate in a discussion like this. We have to give credit where it's due.

He's had a large list of prominent Socialists on his show, who have been largely ignored by mainstream media outlets. Noam Chomsky for example, can never get dedicated time anywhere else.

I guess that's true. It still doesn't excuse him from being an idiot, though. He could stand to shut up and listen for a few minutes. What is he afraid of, that he might learn that his conception of socialism is bullshit?

[R_P_A_S]

Bill Maher is a moron, but fuck he's funny!