… Which, needless to say, she explains far more competently in the video than I could hope to. Even better news, for fans of Dr. Maddow: Crown Publishing not only sent me a copy of DRIFT: The Unmooring of American Military Power, I’ve got a signed hardback copy to give away to one of you lucky readers. Haven’t finished reading my copy yet, but so far it’s both brisk and informative — as anyone who’s listened to Maddow would expect.
So, the Contest: I’ll be re-posting this entry tomorrow, for people who go to bed early or don’t read Balloon Juice on the weekends. Then, between 7pm and 8pm EDT, WordPress willing, I’ll put up a post labelled “CONTEST: Rachel Maddow’s Drift”. The writer of Comment #[redacted] on that post wins the book… and the rest of you can place your pre-orders in time for Tuesday’s release.
While this isn’t optimal for BJ’s overseas readers, it’s the least unfair method I can come up with to give as many people as possible a chance at winning. Any suggestions, please leave me a comment below!
Martin
I suggest your redacted comment number be my comment number.
JS
I suggest someone restore the numbers to the comments section quick, or we’re all going to assume that the winning [redacted] number will be #5, tops.
Gex
Whoever guesses Tunch’s weight to the closest mg without going over should win.
MikeJ
So I have to write a comment on the post tomorrow? Why am I wasting my life here?
Quick, Anne Laurie, you’ve gotta come back with me! Both you and Martin turn out fine. It’s your kids, Anne Laurie. Something gotta be done about your kids!
Now I just need to generate 1.21 gigawatts…
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
So, Veritas or one of our other trolls, or Samara will win the book.
Mike in NC
I want to read the Maddow book. My own impression from 30 years in the military was that 50 cents of every dollar spent was money pissed down a fucking rathole. Yet the GOP wants to double down on that idea. Imagine that!
Mac from Oregon
Let it be me. I need this book.
Really.
Truly.
Love the Rachel
Narcissus
Dang I didn’t even know she was writing one. I’m gonna kindle this.
slag
@MikeJ: Weird. I just bought tickets to Back to the Future like 10 minutes ago. Is this a thing now? Am I unknowingly part of some particular zeitgeist?
Also, how’d you know Anne Laurie is the post author? Just stylistic pattern recognition or is there a tell elsewhere that I’m not seeing?
mikej
@Mike in NC: So money in the military is spent in exactly the same manner as money in corporate America.
Warren Terra
Rather than predetermining a number and a possibly inconvenient time of day, why not just open a thread for a set, longish time period, state that anyone commenting twice will be disqualified, see how many people enter, put that number in a random number generator, and then award the book to the author of the comment with that number?
ETA there was a struck-through “award the book to me” in the above, near the end, but the new, improved Balloon Juice doesn’t do strikethroughs, even when you do them using the handy buttons provided.
freelancer
@Warren Terra:
Yes. This. I’ve seen Phil Plait do giveaways like this. I will unavailable til 7pm Pacific Time tomorrow. I’m sure I’m not the only one. This seems to be the best for all Juicers around the country and world.
One thread. One comment per. Close it down and choose.
mai naem
Why can’t Rachel go on Oprah and we all get a freeee copy of her booook?
David Koch
@mai naem: Why can’t she give it away for free, online? It’s not as if she needs the money.
YellowJournalism
I want to add to the plea to do this the above suggested way. I know tomorrow will be a busy day at work with no chance for a BJ post.
Comrade Mary
@mai naem: Because this would happen.
Daaling
I don’t care who it is or what the book is about, as soon as I find out someone is selling a book they immediately have no credibility.
More often than not they start cricisiing the prez for nonsensical things because it seems cricizing the pres will almost always sell more books. Or they go for the gimick like Kos with the obvious pandering and tacky title. This book probably has a lot to do with Maddows nonsensical crisizing of the prez at random times.
Fuck all of them. They are all just out to make a buck and that is all!
MonkeyBoy
I’m sure Rachael will do a bang-up job on this transformation in terms of economically interested parties and the political changes to make war less immediate and accountable.
However she says she won’t talk about liberals vs. conservatives. One of the points Corey Robin tried to make in his “The Reactionary Mind” was that conservatives tend to like war. I don’t think he made this point very well and the most I could take away was that conservatives are Macho guys who think war is a good way to prove their or their country’s manliness.
I hope she goes into some psychological discussion about why some people generally like war and in what circumstances others will favor it.
The Cheney administration did a masterful job of gaming this psychology post 9/11 to the extent that large numbers of Americans wanted the giant US to go kill some Muslims or brown people like the vermin they are, and it really didn’t matter who.
Not since 1812 has the US fought a war directly in defense of the country so the vast majority of Americans have no immediate economic or positively personally impacting interest in war. Yet the US goes to war largely supported by the population. Why?
policomic
I know I’m a fool to even take the bait, but:
I have written a book. I know other people who have written books. Writing a book is a lousy way to make money.
Yes, if you are already famous, or already have a following, like Maddow, you can make money off of a book. But there are much more efficient ways to monetize your celebrity. And why is having a book to sell suspect, while having a show to sell, every night, to sponsors, on a corporate behemoth TV network, perfectly okay?
Also, assuming the book is any good at all (and I’ll bet hers will be), it’s a hell of a lot of work (if you actually write it, and again, I’m betting she did). It’s a hell of a lot more work than being on teevee for an hour, but I would not be surprised to find that the book will only make her about as much as she makes in a couple of weeks of being on teevee.
freelancer
@MonkeyBoy:
You’re forgetting a little skirmish there from 1861-1865. Also, the Japanese invaded US soil and dropped bombs on the continental US. Just saying.
Warren Terra
@policomic:
DNFTT. Daaling (aka Derf aka a dozen or two other handles, iirc) comments not to convey a viewpoint, but only to inspire a visceral loathing. I suppose it’s a sort of human interaction for them; they could try for better.
Warren Terra
@MonkeyBoy:
@freelancer:
The actual Japanese incursions on US territory were, Pearl Harbor aside, rather small beer. But unquestionably, even without significant violence on US soil, WWII was an existential war for the continuation of a recognizable USA in a way that no other war since 1865 had been, WWI included. Anyone who thinks that toppling the Nazis wasn’t “a war directly in defense of the country” has an extremely shortsighted view of history.
MonkeyBoy
@freelancer: Southerns who fought in the Civil war did so for future economic interests assuming that
1) they were part of the slave economy.
2) politics was heading to the point that slavery would get abolished.
__
Northerners fought mainly for idealism with only the minor economic considerations that if the South broke away
1) cotton and rice would be more expensive
2) a smaller country would be less economically powerful.
3) there might be expensive future wars with their new southern neighbor.
__
Except for abolition of the slave economy the low level participants on both sides fought for idealism and to prove themselves as men.
__
(also testing in this post to see if a double underscore between paragraphs will help separate them)
__
EDIT: Yay! a double underscore on a line alone will separate paragraphs.
freelancer
@MonkeyBoy:
How quaint. No Yankee signed up because cotton would be pricier. Point 2 is obvious on it’s face. Point 3 is baffling. “If I don’t fight Johnny Reb now, I’ll have to fight him later.” Yes, what an idealistic and might I add, minor economic concern!
And then there was that point where Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia was in Southern Pennsylvania, trying to flank DC from the North, with only 93,000 Union soldiers standing between him and Lincoln. If that’s not an existential issue for the continuation of the United States of America, I don’t know what is.
MonkeyBoy
@Warren Terra:
You forget that many on the right, such as Lindberg, Ford, the Bushes, etc. regarded the Nazis either favorably or quasi-neutraly. After all they were anti-union, anti-soshulist, and anti-communist.
__
This part of the right were responsible for the delayed entry into WWII and thought that the US would be fine as an ally of the Nazis with no existential problems.
__
Yes, further down the line Greater Germany or Greater Japan might decide to invade and conquer the US, but this would be extremely (to the point of impossible) difficult and really would be unnecessary if the US was an ally.
EDIT: UGH “soshulist” filter still in place.
Seanly
I’ll throw my hat in the ring for the book! My wife & I have been catching a lot of Rachel lately. She rocks!
Soldier Boy
I suggest you award the book to me.
Sory, had to try that.
Ron
My only suggestion is that since at least right now we don’t have comment numbers you find some other way to randomly select a comment. Also, I agree with the idea that you automatically disqualify anyone who posts more than once.
wvng
Darn. I’ve already ordered mine.
As for it being a lot of work, she started working on it before she got her tv show.
Keith G
@Warren Terra: I agree wholeheartedly.
Cole, consider using Mr. Terra’s idea.
SP
I agree w/Ron – this needs to be a random selection from the comments (duplicate email addresses disqualify).
If you already have comment number in mind, what stops someone from posting repeatedly to increase the odds they hit the number?
Commenting at Balloon Juice since 1937
Rachel eloquently expresses concerns about a democracy’s relationship with the military industrial complex that I’ve had all my life. Its a discussion that’s way over do and she’s the right person to initiate it. Unfortunately, I don’t share her optimism that it can be changed for the better. Mubarak was unmasked in Egypt and it turned out the military were the real rulers. I think its the same here.
ChrisB
That video of Rachel Maddow was taken at the MSNBC Studios located at 30 Rockefeller Center, New York, NY using camera no. 2. I have an interesting and informative personal story about 30 Rock . . .
Oh, sorry, wrong contest.
Deb T
@Commenting at Balloon Juice since 1937:
Are the “military industrial complex” and corporate culture married? I think they are. Money rules. War makes money for corporations, and creates individual wealth as well. If there were no or even less profit in war, that would do more to hinder it than anything else. Also, now who fights wars is very much a class issue. It was less so in Vietnam because of the draft, but for awhile, if you could successfully go to college, you could get out. The voluntary army has done more to boost the less negative view of war. Of course now, we have soldiers coming home wounded and unemployed, but it only affects a limited strata of our society.
I’m sure Rachel makes all these points and more in her book. I wonder if people are beginning to realize who is being made poorer and poorer by these wars (the 99%) and who is just getting richer (the 1%).