WEATHER »

An Afternoon with Rachel Maddow

Author and host of MSNBC’s Emmy-winning TV show The Rachel Maddow Show presents a talk.

When: Sunday, Oct. 7, 2012, 3 p.m.

Where: Arlington Theatre, 1317 State St., Santa Barbara

Cost: $23 - $53

Age limit: Not available

Categories: Lectures

Description:

“Commentary laden with dashes of humor and flashes of wonkish prose but free of righteous rant.” Variety

Rachel Maddow is the funny, “whip-smart” (Time magazine) host of MSNBC’s The Rachel Maddow Show. The hit Emmy-winning TV program features her takes on the biggest stories of the day – political and otherwise – including lively, respectful debate with guests from all sides of the issues, in-depth analysis and stories found nowhere else on cable news. Maddow is the first openly gay person to host a primetime news program and author of the recent New York Times best-seller Drift: The Unmooring of American Military Power, a “smart and deeply documented” look (Los Angeles Times) at America’s drift into perpetual war. Don’t miss this rare public appearance by one of America’s most influential commentators on the political scene.

Pre-signed books will be available for purchase. $38 - $53 - General Public; $23 - UCSB Students (Current ID required / Limited availability)

Phone: 805-893-3535

Event posted Aug. 28, 2012
Last updated Aug. 28, 2012

Comments

Independent Discussion Guidelines

Just another hack subserviant to a corporate adgenda.

Perpetuator of half truths and pre scritped narritives. Might as well be Chris Mathewes.

Just another talking head, albeit one who makes it "special to be part of her club" on the TV, nothing to see here libs, move along.

Perhaps one day we will have another Jim Lerer, only one who is capable of spontenously challanging canidates propositions with a degree of intelligence instead of letting a narritive run wild. Amercia, you deserve all of this.

Lib Darlings!, ignore the subtrafuge! Kiss Rachels posterior!

Stumbling_Distance (anonymous profile)
October 7, 2012 at 7:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Perhaps one day we'll have a well-reasoned opinion from a dissenting point of view that isn't tainted with baseless detractions, misspellngs, and punctuation errors. Is there anyone on the right that can match Rachel Maddow's wit, intellect, and research...and deliver a message free of shrill rhetoric and blatant hypocrisy? I would dearly love to listen to such a commentator if he or she exists to get an honest point of view from the other side. Of course the left has its share of Sean Hannity prototypes and they are just as repugnant to me as Sean is. But hands off Rachel, Sr. Stumbling Distance...she's the real deal and Santa Babara knows it. The Arlington was a sell out...and just imagine how much greater the demand for tickets might have been if a Grateful Dead reunion concert had not been playing simultaneously at the County Bowl.

jeffchemnick (anonymous profile)
October 9, 2012 at 9:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Someone has a case of the bitters and his name isn't Jeff!

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
October 9, 2012 at 12:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Maddow is a Rhodes Scholar and has a PhD from Oxford in political science. Her on-screen demeanor is a lot more intelligent and less shrill than the majority of political commentators on cable.

EastBeach (anonymous profile)
October 9, 2012 at 1:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sounds like a couple of people don't know the definition of the word, "pundit".

Kingprawn (anonymous profile)
October 9, 2012 at 1:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Now "pundit" is a dirty word? It's six letters...

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
October 9, 2012 at 2:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Pundit:

"The term originates from the Sanskritic term pandit, (paṇḍitá), meaning "learned" (see also Pandit). It refers to someone who is erudite in various subjects ..."

But as with many words, modern use by some groups corrupts the original meaning by inferring things not originally associated with the word. For example, "compromise", "elite", etc.

EastBeach (anonymous profile)
October 9, 2012 at 2:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I made no suggestion that the word "pundit" was "dirty" (whatever that means). I did suggest that the modern definition of the word seems to be unknown to Stumbling and Jeff.

Kingprawn (anonymous profile)
October 9, 2012 at 4:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yo, Kingprawn,

This forum might be better served if you stick to the discussion at hand. I'm not sure why you floated the dead red herring of the word "pundit" since neither Stumbling Distance nor I used it in our posts. There are tens of thousands of words in English that we also didn't use and though you might wish to debase us for appearing not to understand them either, I believe I'm responsible only for the words I actually used, not what you imagined I wrote. But to your point.."A pundit is someone who offers to mass media his or her opinion or commentary on a particular subject area, most typically political analysis" (per Wikipedia). How does that negate anything I said...or contravene what I wrote?

jeffchemnick (anonymous profile)
October 10, 2012 at 7:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Jeff,

It's OK that you don't understand my point and clearly you and Ken didn't because of your responses. Rest assured that I clearly understand what you're saying.

Kingprawn (anonymous profile)
October 10, 2012 at 8:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"This forum might be better served if you stick to the discussion at hand." @Jeffchemnick

Lol. Straying off topic is the rule, not the exception here at the Independent as it is on most comment boards.

Try not to be angry, bro. None of this matters. It's just a comment board.

Kingprawn (anonymous profile)
October 10, 2012 at 8:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Kingster,

Thanks for the compliment. I always strive to deliver a clear and cogent message whenever I write and so I'm glad you understood what I wrote. I wish I could say the same for your comments but I cannot. I could guess what you're trying to convey but since it's your thoughts that are unclear and do not pertain to the initial thread, it seems unfair to judge the content of your post by inference and innuendo. Perhaps you could do the forum a favor and be more specific so we can understand your point and respond to it accordingly. Thanks.

jeffchemnick (anonymous profile)
October 10, 2012 at 8:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Lol.

Kingprawn (anonymous profile)
October 10, 2012 at 9:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The Dirty Knobs

The Dirty Knobs and The Coffis Brothers & The Mountain ... Read More