Rachel's "Drift" book tour continues apace this week, and the volume of interviews and appearances remains higher than I can gather links for, but there have been a few highlightable links you'll appreciate, particularly if you've been upset at missing the live events. The book has debuted on the Indie Bestseller List and the New York Times review was good (Ok, they called her "sometimes too-smart-alecky," but still, good enough).
The most curious (to me) date on her schedule was guesting on the Howard Stern Show. The full more-than-an-hour interview is here. There are the expected cringe questions, but overall it's fun. It turns out there's also a site that takes notes on what's on the Howard Stern Show, so you can scroll down to 8:05 a.m. here and see what she talked about.
If you want to know what the book events are like, someone was nice enough to record the entire March 29th Barnes & Noble launch event. (Where this ends, a typical event turns into waiting in line for an autograph and chatting with Maddow fans.)
Video after the jump...
I also ran into a few clips from the Cambridge event this past weekend. Here, here and here. UPDATE: Ok, forget those tiny clips, as Jess points out in the comments, the whole Cambridge event is online now.
This brief clip is from the Vermont event.
And if you're a downloader (and you're caught up on your TRMS podcasts) the WHMP broadcast of the Mt. Holyoke appearance is available as an mp3 as well as streaming audio.
Leave a Comment:
The Harvard Bookstore has posted full video of the talk (including the hilarious oohing and aahing of the crowd on the other future signings).
Also, uh, Rachel may have met a hedgehog related to the unofficial official mascot at the Cambridge signing. (it was a dare. Really.)
...and from my own personal experience, nothing is as frightening/amazing as having one of your major heroes blink at you and go, "Wait, YOU'RE Jess?"
Hahaha omg you got her to officiate Wiki?! Omg Jess that is great!!!!
When do we start printing the T-Shirts?
Is Harvard University a really good place to take dog grooming classes or should I go to the University of Michigan?
There just HAS to be a way I can get her to sign my Kindle!
Well ya gotta be smart to be a smart aleck I always say,
"Smart aleck" is just something people call you when you're smarter than they are.
"It's easy to read" is just something you say about a poorly written book.
Hahaha! And what a sell out! Roger Ailes on the back cover!
Sure. 1984 was easy to read- the first time I ever read it was in 8th grade. Guess that means that it's the most poorly written political book ever....o wait
Also you are aware she put that on the back cover precisely because she wanted to show that it was non-partisan, yes?
Just saying if you are going to accuse her of being a sell-out I sincerely doubt her millions of sold-out dollars are going to come from a book deal.
I wonder if this samusx person (or chatbot) thought he/she/it was being clever? Probably, unfortunately. I wonder if I much care? No? Off to bed, then. Maybe I'll have that dream again about Internet tr0lls being devoured by rabid wolverines, who then die from botulism. I love happy endings.
Bwaahhhaaa! You're comparing Maddow to Orwell! Oh man, that just made my day! Silly libs!
I've got to ask though, why Orwell? Everyone knows that they dystopia liberals want is Huxleys!
I wasn't comparing Orwell to Maddow nor did I ever imply as much. You said that an easy to read book is a sign that a book is poorly written implying that since Maddow said her book was easy to read this therefore means that her book is poorly written. I was commenting that, by the logic you presented, this would mean that Orwell's book 1984 (which is an easy to read book) would then also be poorly written. The irony, though, is that by asserting Orwell is a good author (implied w/in your response) then this means you were unknowingly proving me correct.
So now the question is- were you correct the first time you opened your mouth and therefore were lying and being hypocritical the second time OR were you correct the second time and there thus lying and being hypocritical the first time?
If you think 1984 is an easy read then you don't understand the book. It's a book that demands being read with contemplation. I suggest you go pick up the Cliff's Notes.
I never implied that 1984 is an easy read. Actually I never asserted he's a good author either. You just assumed both of those things. So no, I never presented such logic. Now I don't have to wonder if you're a hypocrite or a liar. I already know the answer.
Since you are not defining what an "easy read" is then I can make this assertion; 1984 was, according to it's author, written in such a way that the average person could read and understand it. In fact that is the number 1 compliment as given by the books critics. I suggest you spend a semester like I did at school studying 1984 before you write it off as much.
No. Your argument was that Rachel Maddow's book was an easy read and that because of this, this means that her book is poorly written. Again, by this argument, that would mean any book that was "an easy read" would be poorly written. So 1984, The Jungle, Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, etc. So, as I asserted, by your logic this would mean you were arguing that these books were poorly written. When I stated this you then laughed out loud and stated that it made you laugh to compare Maddow to Orwell. This would not have made you laugh out loud unless you saw Orwell as being a superior author. I did not make the assertion that Maddow is comparable to Orwell, only that your logic leads to this conclusion because your logic is specious enough to lead to this conclusion. In providing this response- that you laughed out loud- you then, in fact, are affirming my criticism to be correct of the argument you presented. So yes this does, in fact, make you hypocritical.
The only other option here is that you personally did not understand your own argument. In which case I suggest you go back and re-read what you wrote.
Man I love liberals! You're basing a "logical argument" on speculation of what I really meant when I said what I said. To retort, I suggest you spend multiple semesters studying logic like I did before you embarrass yourself again.
By the way, get on meddlingmonk's case. According to that logic, the sheer statement "smart aleck" magically lowers your intelligence below the person you said it to. You guys crack me up. No wonder the country is turning on you right now.
Please can we see some airtime on what Newt is doing here in WI with his 3rd wife Calista, who is from Whitehall, WI; population 1273. We have wondered why Newt put on the brakes before coming to his current wife's home state? Yes, my family settled in that same Trempeleau County back in 1846! Newt's been seen slinking...
To collectors: If you plan on having the companion audio CD version of Drift ( read by the author ) in order to have a complete collectable, get two CD sets. My short term selfishness won out when I was not certain of the pronunciation of a term used in the hard copy. Now I am using it as a read-along. Talk about lazy.
There are six CD's in the set.
I prefer audio-books where ever possible; they make repetitive tasks more productive. Note to publishers: NOT ENOUGH BOOKS ARE IN AUDIO!
I am watching Rachel on her show as I am reading this: HOW MANY RACHELS ARE THERE? How can any one person do all of this let alone at the same time????
Amazing.
They come in six packs (old H2G2 joke).
Hey Rachel -- Listening to Howard Stern and you now. Hilarious.
But this is true: I was watching you on MSNBC for something like two years before I had any idea you were gay. I bet that's true for a lot of your viewers.
I think you'd lose that bet. But what do I know? I've just discovered that Frank Sinatra could sing. Who knew?
i remember one night i walked into the living room where my (relatively) conservative parents had on your show, and i was like... you know she's super liberal right?
it was a cocktail moment, and they were having fun just watching you mix drinks!
How ironic. It's now being reported that both Romney and Ryan broke Wisconsin's election law by passing out free food on election day. Yup, they're both on camera passing out free Subway sandwiches, valued around the five buck mark. The law states a candidate cannot pass out for free anything of value over a buck. Ironically, both of these 'gentlemen,' under the recent US Supreme Court decision could be subject to a strip search! How do ya like that freedom folks!?!
I don't know if would be a good idea to strip-search Romney. Given the fact that he always takes each side of every issue, do we truly want to know how many sets of genitalia he keeps in his pants? On the other hand, considering how often he's screwed himself politically, maybe we already do know.
Well, I don't know. The case is a bit more narrow than some accounts make it out to be. Did they have judicial warrants? Would they be kept in general population for days? Does state law allow it?
It was Cousins Subs, not Subway. Wouldn't want to Romney on the Subway. Everybody in Wisconsin knows this, especially Paul Ryan. The R's get upset if they think D's are handing out just a sticker.
Good locale -- few years back, I saw Al Franken promote his book in the same bookstore. Katherine Lanpher also pops up. Remember her?!
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/upstairs-at-the-square/index.asp
Dear Rachel,
If you're gonna play in Texas you better have a fiddle in the band.
Your friend,
Carol
Rachel, I am so excited to see you in person. I cannot imagine doing all that you do, and I'm really glad I'll get to meet you. Your mind is just this super amazing place, and I wish I got to see more of it than the one hour a day on national TV. Keep up the excellence!
The last time Rachel was in Chicago she dropped a turkey hot dog on the sidewalk and called it ground beef. Rachel, I like your matching shirts. Is your mind made up or is it still a work in progress?
I'm watching your appearance on Letterman, a few nights ago, and wanted to respond to some of your statements, vis a vis the Draft. I don't know where the idea of the draft being an attempt to "spread the pain around", to paraphrase your concept, but the draft that ended in the mid-'70s started in the days before WW2, and was an attempt by FDR to get around an obstructionist republican't Congress determined to play ostrich and avoid "entanglement" in another "foreign war". The republican'ts in Congress at the time had so throttled defense spending, new recruits were using sticks because there weren't enough rifles to go around. They were also limited on the number of rounds they could use to qualify on the rifle range, because the Army (and other branches) had no money to spend on ammunition. Much of the equipment, from rifles to tanks, battleships to bombers, was antiquated, or out of date and inappropriate to the task almost everyone with a brain knew was fast approaching! In fact, the Army Air Corps sent 6 B-17s to Hawaii, UNARMED, the planes approaching the islands JUST AS THE Japanese attack was occurring! Some were diverted, but at least three were destroyed as they tried to land, adding nearly $1 MILLION (1941 dollars) to the destruction, needlessly, because the stateside command did not want to give up the armament (10 50-calliber machine guns) and made it the responsibility of the receiving command to provide the weapons. Note to command, when you anticipate an attack at any moment, do NOT send UNARMED aircraft into the anticipated (regardless how low on the list of targets) battle zone, JUST TO SAVE THE COST OF A FEW MACHINE GUNS! "For want of a nail, a shoe was lost, for want of a shoe, a horse was lost, for want of a horse, a rider was lost, for want of a rider, a battle was lost, all for want of a nail"--didn't ANYONE in the late-'30s military command structure READ that, even ONCE?
Of course, there were other reasons operating on the events of the day, and my comment is toward the draft, not the stupidity (and/or cupidity) of the commanders at that time. I was pointing out the reason for the draft in the first place, and FDR's prescience and presence of mind to effectively work around a gang of lunatics masquerading as political "leaders". Then, as now, politicians were far more interested in catering to the interests of those who put them in office, not the interests of the country, no matter how vigorously they wave the flag and recite the Pledge of Allegiance. Many of the large corporations were more concerned with selling munitions and supplies to BOTH sides, and being neutral would have facilitated that far easier than the alternative. Of course, with the sneak attack by Japan rousing public emotion to a fever pitch, they soon found a perch on the Hawk side of the equation, and went to work, selling Uncle Sam EVERYTHING that had been denied for most of a decade. Not that they stopped selling, equipping and providing sustenance and materials to the enemy, mind you, but they did an admirable job of disguising their treachery.
However, the draft was a stop-gap, once the war was underway, because every Tom, Dick and Harry lined up outside the nearest recruiting office, the next day, Monday morning, and the services didn't need the draft for almost two years. It was still used, but there was such a groundswell of applicants to process, equip and train, draftees were a minority. Once the war started chewing up those early recruits, the draft became more important.
Although the military downsized at the end of WW2, they didn't return to their original size. Like smokers who've made the choice to quit, the pre-war republican'ts became converts, and the military got almost everything on their wish list, making the police action in Korea a God-send, so they could get rid of some of the old stuff and order new goodies. The Draft, and military spending, raved on, even scooping up Elvis, putting the "King" in charming fatigues on teen mag covers everywhere. VietNam followed in these footsteps, and the military/industrial complex of DDE's farewell warning was in full bloom, patting each other on the back for the terrific job they were doing "protecting" democracy. Never mind some of the protection far more closely resembled the kind of "protection" offered by the Mob, as we supported dictators, tyrants and bullies more than true "freedom fighters".
Still, the American's taste for the untrammeled excesses and blatant arrogance of VietNam ran out in the late 1960's, arriving at a "come to Jesus" moment after Tricky Dick Nixon campaigned on "ending the VietNam War", then twisted his intent into "no peace without honor" that actually escalated the military's efforts and drug the hostilities out into his 2nd term! Mr and Mrs John Q Public turned from supporting RMN's first campaign, to marching in the streets long before his second was launched, especially after the disastrous Kent State imbroglio that cost four students their lives over the issue. That brought the entire question of VietNam and the Draft front and center in homes all over America, which made the Pentagon's handling of the war and it's uncontrolled budget a target with a big red bull’s-eye painted on it. Once the war was over, the draft was next, because people everywhere realized, if you have a HUGE military standing around, SOMEONE, somewhere is going to find a way to get them involved in something. The obvious answer to the problem was to eliminate the draft, and downsize the military.
Carter managed some of this, following the repudiation of Ford, and Ronnie RayGun, who trumpeted the absolute necessity of a large defense system, to "combat" rampant communism. Fortunately, this drum had been beaten too long, too loudly and too often, to be of much use in 1976. Following the debacle in the desert, in the 3 Stooges version of rescuing the hostages, which seemed to be the intent of the military involved, not that they would do anything of the sort (HAH!), Carter's efforts, and his "Malaise" speech, fell on deaf ears, particularly against the B-movie-hero talents of Ronnie RayGun, whose frantic flag-waving resonated with those who had been spared the agonies of a non-partisan draft, installing a poseur of the first-magnitude in the White House and confusing the weak-minded everywhere.
Now, after more than ten years of extended warfare, the military is exhausted, and we are more threatened, in far more jeopardy than ever! Thanks to a draft-dodging ex-president, and a bunch of lunatic supposed ex-military, we rely on lower class soldiers on their third, fourth and fifth tours of a war zone, and an ever-increasing array of expensive toys to take up the slack, a dangerous combination with potentially devastating consequences!
The solution to these problems is simple: restart the draft, with a couple of provisos. First, EVERYONE goes! Except for the physically and mentally handicapped, every hale and hearty teenager just out of high school should report. For ONLY an initial training session of, say, SIX months--long enough to teach them basic military rules and standards, train them at a job, or MOS, and have them spend a few months in a unit practicing what they learned. THEN, bring them back, every year, for a month, or so, for the next SIX years, and discharge them after. ONLY the cream of the crop should be allowed to re-enlist, making a solid cadre of good soldiers (sailors, marines, airmen, etc), to run things and be there WHEN, and IF, needed.
This provides a uniform, fair and practical method for maintaining the kind of military we might need, without breaking the bank. It gets kids out of the ghetto, or the enclave, to meet other kids like them, except for economic LUCK, and exposes them to an entirely NEW set of expectations and rules, broadening their outlook, squashing their latent xenophobia, and giving them something to share with others, encouraging an "American" mindset, instead of the segmented identities that have grown wild in the years since the draft ended, playing down their being Italian ("paisan"), redneck, black, Jewish, Christian (whether mainstream or Pentecostal), and any of the other groups that alienate us, and prevent us from seeing others as being entitled to as decent a life as we demand for ourselves. Reconfiguring the national identity to more closely resemble what it actually is, when you get out of the ghetto, the enclave, the gated community, the farm or barrio, etc. Given the opportunity, rich kids can make friends with black kids, poor kids, middle-income kids from Jewish families, etc. Everyone benefits, except, of course, the people who like to profit off the status quo, who can be expected to blow gaping holes in any such attempt to interfere with their fingers in the pie. So, who said it would be easy? Did you expect to live forever, in peace and quiet, without conflict? Not in this world. Let's try something new, something different, and see if we can arrive at a better result.
TLDR Welcome to the Twitter-world where less is more!
What do we have to do to get to you to come to Chicago Rachel?!?! We'd love to have you!!!
What about Allentown, PA? We're just 60 miles up the NE Extension from Philly--the road that George Washington was an unnecessary use of funds during the Revolution!
See, now you have to come to feel the historic drive--but wait, there's more! Once you are here, visit the historic Zion’s Reformed United Church of Christ where the Liberty Bell and about a dozen other church bells were hidden during the Revolution! Those bastard Brits would have just melted them into cannons!
http://www.libertybellmuseum.org/
If anyone has video of the complete Sabine Theatre show in L.A., I'd be eternally grateful for a copy. I actually got to ask Rachel a question, and would love to see it, since I was mostly focused on not looking like a nervous wreck at talking with my hero!
Many thanks, All. Keep fighting the good fight!