Rachel Maddow on Scary Music : Dispatches from the Culture Wars

Profile

Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of Michigan Citizens for Science and co-founder of The Panda's Thumb. He has written for such publications as The Bard, Skeptic and Reports of the National Center for Science Education, spoken in front of many organizations and conferences, and appeared on nationally syndicated radio shows and on C-SPAN. Ed is also a Fellow with the Center for Independent Media and the host of Declaring Independence, a one hour weekly political talk show on WPRR in Grand Rapids, Michigan.(static)

Search

Other Information

Ed Brayton also blogs at Positive Liberty and The Panda's Thumb

Ed Brayton is a participant in the Center for Independent Media New Journalism Program. However, all of the statements, opinions, policies, and views expressed on this site are solely Ed Brayton's. This web site is not a production of the Center, and the Center does not support or endorse any of the contents on this site.

Ed's Audio and Video

Declaring Independence podcast feed

YearlyKos 2007

Video of speech on Dover and the Future of the Anti-Evolution Movement

Audio of Greg Raymer Interview

E-mail Policy

Any and all emails that I receive may be reprinted, in part or in full, on this blog with attribution. If this is not acceptable to you, do not send me e-mail - especially if you're going to end up being embarrassed when it's printed publicly for all to see.

My Ecosystem Details

« Scientific American's 10 Science Leaders | Main | Chicago Destroys Mural on Private Property »

Rachel Maddow on Scary Music

Posted on: May 23, 2009 9:16 AM, by Ed Brayton

This is a hilarious clip of a segment from Rachel Maddow about how scary music turned the spines of Democratic Senators to jelly.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Find more posts in: Politics

Share this: Facebook Twitter Stumbleupon Reddit Email + More

Comments

So why are they lifting the travel ban to Cuba? If terrorists can get out of US maximum security prisons, then they can get out of Gitmo. Aren't people worried that terrorists may end up as cabana boys at Cuban tourist resorts?

Posted by: Ex-drone | May 23, 2009 10:14 AM

What can you say? Fear works. The Senators knew that if they voted for the funding this would become a big talking point in their next election. The Republicans would twist it to make it look like they are soft on crime and security. That's why they all chickened out.

Posted by: Iason Ouabache | May 23, 2009 10:44 AM

Okay, since Carmina Burana is featured on every clip NFL Films has ever released, does that mean that the NFL barons have been secretly manipulating the US Senate like marionettes? Was Karl Orff the Antichrist? Inquiring minds want to know!

Posted by: kehrsam | May 23, 2009 10:49 AM

Wow - I can't believe it - she has gotten even more annoying.

Posted by: yoshi | May 23, 2009 11:57 AM

Yoshi - which TV news analyst and host do you prefer, if any?

Posted by: Michael Heath | May 23, 2009 1:11 PM

Obama needs to go down there and kick some serious ass.

Posted by: CHV | May 23, 2009 1:50 PM

"Yoshi - which TV news analyst and host do you prefer, if any?"

You best get behind 7 proxies with that kind of talk.

Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | May 23, 2009 1:52 PM

Fuck, meant to quote yoshi above. Sorry Mike Heath.

Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | May 23, 2009 1:54 PM

"Annoying?" Beg to differ. She's great! Hilarious and on point.

Posted by: PensiveGadfly | May 23, 2009 1:56 PM

"Annoying" versus "hilarious" is a matter of taste. That she had a good point is not-- were these people unaware that closing Guantanamo and transferring its prisoners out was going to cost money, or are they convinced that people accused-- accused, not convicted-- of being "enemy combatants" are some kind of super-villains who are capable of breaking out of maximum security prisons while the people currently there cannot?

Posted by: Gretchen | May 23, 2009 2:22 PM

Yeah that was great fearless political reporting. And funny to boot. Of course it ignored the real reason Congress denied the funding, just like every other news outlet. I may be mistaken but aren't these the same POLITICIANS (not lawmakers, I refuse to call them that) that support our troops? So, they will ask Americans to put their lives on the line for the good of the country, but won't put their jobs on the line for what they know is right? Yeah, it IS funny that one third of our government is a collection of spineless, cover-your-ass careerists. HA HA HA...

Posted by: B8ovin | May 23, 2009 2:41 PM

Fine, B8ovin, but if that's the case then why do we have these examples of them making very strong arguments in favor of closing Guantanamo on the one hand, but then opposing the funding to do it on the next? If a politician is so concerned about looking "pro-troops, anti-terrorist" as that, then why support closing Guantanamo in the first place?

Also, I'd say it's more than one-third.... ;-)

Posted by: Gretchen | May 23, 2009 2:46 PM

Arguing to close Guantanamo while denying funding is exactly my point. If they fear it will impact their re-election they vote contrary to what they know is right. They are not willing to put their jobs on the line while celebrating those who put their LIVES on the line. I find this nauseating.

The 1/3 referred to branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial.

Posted by: B8ovin | May 23, 2009 2:59 PM

No, the terrorists can't break out of American prisons.

But the terrorists can be SPRUNG out--by the ACLU, Human Rights Watch, and all the other groups who don't mind seeing Americans butchered by terrorists as long as the terrorists' civil liberties are preserved. Human Rights Watch is planning to get not just Gitmo shut down, but SuperMax as well.

The original purpose of Gitmo was to put the terrorists beyond the 12 mile limit. Once the terrorists set foot on American soil, they are entitled to all the Constitutional protections. And therefore, the possibility of acquittal in court. The result of having Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or one of his ilk walk out of a courtroom, a free man, ready to kill again, would be catastrophic for the American judicial system. Most Americans would conclude it's failed--and look elsewhere for protection. Like vigilantes.

I once asked one of these civil libertarians if he would have any problem with Osama bin Laden being acquitted by twisting the law, the way O.J. Simpson was acquitted. He said no.

In war (and we are in a war, our troops are fighting on foreign battlefields right now), you can't let the enemy walk out free as a bird. That's why the civilian court system is the wrong place to deal with these terrorists.

President Obama is correct--properly structured, military tribunals are the best answer.

Posted by: sinz54 | May 23, 2009 3:32 PM

But the terrorists can be SPRUNG out--by the ACLU, Human Rights Watch, and all the other groups who don't mind seeing Americans butchered by terrorists as long as the terrorists' civil liberties are preserved.

If you're not kidding, then you're really an idiot.

Posted by: Gretchen | May 23, 2009 3:39 PM

Sinusinfection54:

Would those be the same liberals that insisted they be treated like animals and tortured them to make sure that any who didn't hate us when they got to Gitmos sure as hell do now? You're an idiot.

Posted by: democommie | May 23, 2009 3:52 PM

Sinz54, and others who fear the "terrorists" in Gitmo. How do you know they are terrorists? What evidence do you have to support this claim that everyone of them is a terrorist.

Posted by: James Morris | May 23, 2009 4:41 PM

Sinz54, and others who fear the "terrorists" in Gitmo. How do you know they are terrorists? What evidence do you have to support this claim that everyone of them is a terrorist.

Posted by: James Morris | May 23, 2009 4:46 PM

sinz54:

No, the terrorists can't break out of American prisons.
But the terrorists can be SPRUNG out--by the ACLU, Human Rights Watch, and all the other groups who don't mind seeing Americans butchered by terrorists as long as the terrorists' civil liberties are preserved.

You have no odea what you're talking about, do you? Some of the people held in Gitmo are there because they are merely accused of being involved in terrorism, not because they have been tried and found guilty. The equivalent would be the police busting into your home, arresting you, taking you to jail, then you having bail denied - but you never go to trial. You just remain in jail. Whilst there, you face various forms of torture...oops, I mean 'enhanced interrogation techniques', including being forced to remain in stress positions for anything up to 24 hours, sexual degradation, forced drugging, and possibly even waterboarding. And, so far, all that had happened was that you were merely accused of a crime. In that situation, would you agree your rights had been violated?

The original purpose of Gitmo was to put the terrorists beyond the 12 mile limit. Once the terrorists set foot on American soil, they are entitled to all the Constitutional protections. And therefore, the possibility of acquittal in court.

If you see no problem with this, you obviously think the Constitution, and even the basic idea of 'fair trial' is something that isn't that great, then.

The result of having Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or one of his ilk walk out of a courtroom, a free man, ready to kill again, would be catastrophic for the American judicial system.

The only real reason that, if he were tried in court, the guilty verdict is in any doubt is because some of the evidence against him might be ruled inadmissable. The reason for this is because he was tortured. However, even taking this into account, it is incredibly unlikely he would be found not guilty.

I once asked one of these civil libertarians if he would have any problem with Osama bin Laden being acquitted by twisting the law, the way O.J. Simpson was acquitted. He said no.

So you think that, because of some fairly precise circumstances, to do mostly with a smooth-talking lawyer managing to put doubt about the DNA evidence (which, at the time, was a relatively unknown field) in the minds of the jury, someone managed to get away with murder (quite literally), you think murderers, rapists, thieves and terrorists snap their fingers and walk out of courtrooms every day? Quite frankly, grow a brain.

In war (and we are in a war, our troops are fighting on foreign battlefields right now), you can't let the enemy walk out free as a bird.

Firstly, yes, we are in a war - but a very different war to the ones that have been fought before, and we're fighting it in the wrong way. We are going after the countries where our enemy resides, but, unlike previous wars, our enemy isn't a country's government. So we are being drawn into long, drawn-out, time-consuming actions that use up a lot of resources, such as the invasion of Iraq, which actually achieve very little in this war, and our enemies simply slip out to another country (if they were ever there in the first place, which, in the case of Iraq, looks very unlikely).

Secondly, we're also fighting this war that is supposed to be in defense of freedom by denying it to a lot of people.

Thirdly, the 'enemy', isn't. The people in Gitmo are people who have been accused of terrorism. Some of them possibly are. By the looks of things, many are not. Some facts for you. Since we went into Afghanistan in 2001, a little under 800 'terrorists' have been brought to Gitmo. Of these, a little over 400 have been (eventually) released without charge, despite the fact that, according to Bush, anyway, they can be legally detained indefinitely. I'm not sure of the precise number that have actually been found guilty of something, but I don't think it's even into double figures. The rest are all either there having been charged, but having had no opportunity to defend themselves against the allegations, or haven't even actually been charged with anything yet, and many have been there for months, if not years. This includes a few that were basically detained for the crime of wearing a particular make of Casio watch, which is commonly used by terrorists as a timer in bombs.

That's why the civilian court system is the wrong place to deal with these terrorists.
President Obama is correct--properly structured, military tribunals are the best answer.

At the moment, most of the 'terrorists' aren't even getting that.

Posted by: Paul | May 23, 2009 4:50 PM

sinz54, do you know of any U.S. military base that is not considered U.S. soil? While on the grounds of Gitmo these detainees are de facto, detained on U.S. soil.
Also, dogs and cats can't inter-breed, 5+5 does not equal 11 and the opinion of one civil libertarian doesn't speak for all of them. Just a few facts to get you rolling.

Posted by: B8ovin | May 23, 2009 6:28 PM

From CQ Politics: "However, the war spending bill also contains language to prevent the administration from moving Guantánamo prisoners to the United States this fiscal year."

Think maybe that's why it was voted down?

Posted by: Benjamin Geiger | May 23, 2009 6:38 PM

Sinz54, are you an idiot, or simply a coward?

Posted by: Blaidd Drwg | May 23, 2009 7:08 PM

I'm not sure of the precise number that have actually been found guilty of something, but I don't think it's even into double figures.

According to wikipedia, three people have been convicted. So it's almost a third of the way to double figures.

Posted by: TBRP | May 23, 2009 7:31 PM

Blaidd Drwg @ #22:

Sinz54, are you an idiot, or simply a coward?

You're being too narrow-minded. He could easily be both. :P

Posted by: phantomreader42 | May 24, 2009 12:42 AM

Sinz54: "But the terrorists can be SPRUNG out--by the ACLU, Human Rights Watch, and all the other groups who don't mind seeing Americans butchered by terrorists as long as the terrorists' civil liberties are preserved."

If this is the case, why haven't they tried to "spring" the terrorists who are already housed in U.S. prisons — terrorists like Ramzi Usef?

"Human Rights Watch is planning to get not just Gitmo shut down, but SuperMax as well."

Where's your evidence for this? I searched their Web site and found no such plan.

Posted by: Chris Winter | May 24, 2009 12:40 PM

"...turned the spines of Democrats to jelly."

Turned?? I didn't know that their spines were that solid.

Posted by: teammarty | May 24, 2009 1:28 PM

The way the Democrats have caved in to this ridiculous "the terrorists will be walking the streets of America" meme is almost enough to drive me towards conspiracy theorizing.

How can they be THAT stupid? I mean I generally have a extremely low opinion of politicians and my opinion of Harry Reid is no exception, but that "you can put them in prison unless you release them" line is so beyond the pale that I find it hard to believe that it isn't deliberate stupidity.

I mean how does he remember to breath in and out on a consistent basis if he is actually that stupid?

It makes me start to wonder what REALLY might be going on...[gets out the tin foil with thoughts of a new hat design]

Posted by: Troy Britain | May 24, 2009 3:49 PM

Aside from the nonsense offered by sinz54, which has already been adequately addressed, I never cease to be amazed at how otherwise rational people can be reduced to quivering fear by the right wing. Joe McCarthy and the HUAC (House Unamerican Activities Committee for those of you less than 60 or who haven't read your history) were past masters of practice, painting the Soviet Union, all communists, and fellow travelers as universal supermen capable of morphing like the Hulk, climbing like Spiderman, and decoding any US secret message. It took Dwight Eisenhower to call their bluff and it'll probably take a a Republican of similar stature—Colin Powell, are you listening?—to dispose of the Republican argument. Because for now, Obama, as competent as he is, has lost much of the argument about Gitmo to Cheney's fear mongering, and lacks the stature of Eisenhower to dismiss Cheney and the rest as certifiably nuts in the eyes of the public.

Posted by: Keanus | May 24, 2009 10:25 PM

Keanus stated:

. . . it'll probably take a a Republican of similar stature—Colin Powell, are you listening?

It's my understanding that Powell has been leading on both the issue to close Gitmo and how wrong it was to not treat all detainees humanely all the time (a standard far above mere torture and consistent with our laws and treaty obligations). It's also my understanding he took these positions from the beginning.

The problem as I see it is that while Powell is considered a statesman, his image is one that transcends partisanship. People consider his point of view without attributing it to any formal or even informal position by the GOP. While Powell has just recently defined himself as a Republican to attempt to tie his views into a position that is held by some remaining Republicans beyond himself, I'm skeptical people will ever attribute his views to the GOP. Cheney, Hannity, Palin, Coulter, and Limbaugh are what's left of the GOP.

What would be interesting is if a 2012 candidate took Powell's position in a most strident manner, which might enable them to attack Obama's domestic policy positions while negating foreign policy as a differentiator. Given the public still has some perception that the Republicans are better equipped to protect our cowards, where Reid and the Senate Democrats' recent actions on closing Gitmo perpetuate that perspective, I don't see that happening.

Posted by: Michael Heath | May 25, 2009 9:25 AM