Some thoughts about Rachel Maddow

As examined through two interviews. 

First off: Who do I write this blog for? Primarily, seeing as very few people read it (which I don't really mind), I'd say I write it for myself. It'd be nice if I could say that I write it for more than just myself, but that's how it is. It'd be great if more people read my blog, but that's not a huge concern of mine right now.

Anyways, onto the main topic. My (partial) namesake, Rachel Maddow. I assume most people have a general idea of who she is -- an MSNBC host who's got her own show that's on at 9 pm weeknights. Naturally, it's called the Rachel Maddow Show, and not that I'm really aiming to go into broadcast journalism, but what if I end up having my own show with a similar name? An interesting idea to ponder, if you're me. 

I'm not particularly familiar with her or her show, so I had to look up how to pronounce her last name. The second syllable rhymes with show or meadow, not now. In that, she's like Anderson -- his show (or rather, the shortened name of it) also has a bit of a rhyming thing going on: AC360. I am trying to watch MSNBC a bit more for the sake of variety, so hopefully I'll catch the Rachel Maddow Show occasionally.

Not having watched Rachel Maddow enough, I can't really provide that comprehensive of a comparison of her vs. Anderson. They've both got their own shows, have had said shows for a decent amount of time, and are gay/lesbian. As far as differences go, Anderson has a fancy sounding name, and the family background to go with it, as he is an heir (but you wouldn't guess it). From my preliminary readings about Rachel Maddow, I have learned that she is not an heir and does not have a particularly fancy sounding full name. That's about the extent of the comparison I can do so far. 

The reason I started thinking about Rachel Maddow is because of Donald Trump's recent tweet about "Sloppy Steve Bannon," a new derogatory nickname. Knowing someone else (not Bannon) named Steve, I wondered what he thought (if anything) about the nickname "Sloppy Steve," since I feel like I would have some thoughts if Trump came up with a derogatory nickname for someone with the same (first) name as me. 

So, naturally, I ended up thinking about the fact that Rachel Maddow has the same first name as me and could plausibly be someone Trump might decide to come up with a derogatory nickname for. If he happens to do that in the future, it wouldn't be the first time he's gone after MSNBC personalities (ex: "Psycho Joe" Scarborough).  

Since I was thinking about Rachel Maddow and wasn't (still am not) particularly familiar with her, I decided to read a couple of interviews of her. (do you see a theme here? I'm not sure if other people share my penchant for reading interviews of various mildly-to-rather famous people to get some insight on them. But how else are you supposed to get an idea of what these people are like?)  

The first one I read was from Rolling Stone, published in spring of last year. Some key things I noticed were that she came across as very confident, sure of herself, and direct in her answers. In some ways, you could almost consider it masculine (not that women have any obligation to behave in stereotypically feminine ways). This interview happened to mention her preferred style of clothes to wear, which I wish I could get away with without feeling overly un-put-together. 

The second interview I read was from New York magazine, published in the fall of 2017: It offers a deconstruction of Maddow's style of explaining things in her show, something which would probably resonate more with me if I were more familiar with the show. It also goes into what her workday is like, her process of preparing material for her show each night. 

A very interesting part of this interview (more so the published article, rather than the actual interview as an event), to me, was where the author goes on a tangent (if you know me, you know I'm a tangential person) about a somewhat distant relative of Rachel Maddow, who happened to have written a book the interviewer had read and thought to be "brilliant." The interviewer and Rachel Maddow end up talking about this relative, and this tangent later connects to Maddow's apparent similar habit of telling tangential stories on her show, based on her trains of thought (I tried to distill this idea in my own words as well as possible, but maybe you're better off reading the relevant part of the interview).  

Some takeways/key ideas from both of them, or things that were mentioned in both: Rachel Maddow sees her job as being to explain the news.* She wants to have something worthwhile to say to her audience. 

There were a few lines/parts that were quite similar between the two of them, very similar phrasing about the same topic (one instance happened to be about personal life, privacy) -- reminiscent of when I was reading interviews of David Fahrenthold; after a few, I definitely noticed some repetitive ideas or things he mentioned showing up across multiple interviews (maybe the interviewers should've asked him different questions, therefore eliciting different answers?).

I don't really remember noticing such parallels when I read interviews of other people -- Peter Sarsgaard, for example, but maybe there are explanations for that. Maybe it's not necessarily a case of journalists (as a specific set of people) being particularly predisposed to give similar answers across multiple interviews. In any case, two examples (Fahrenthold, Maddow) might be a bit of a small sample to make broad generalizations from.  

In closing: Maybe it would serve me well to strive to be more like Rachel Maddow? But I'll have to get more familiar with her show and what she's like first.

*Somewhat similar to my notion that journalism is a means of bringing order to information, which appeals to me in the way that watching Law and Order appeals to me, because that show portrays detectives and prosecutors bringing order to things by solving the crimes and serving justice.  

New year, new me?

(hahaha, not really -- don't count on me changing too much in the beginning of my third decade of life!) 

In any case, the culmination of a day shopping was a bit less than thrilling. I did not find the things I wanted to find and have. So here is a rundown of things I would like to have, but have not been able to find thus far. Some of them are a bit bewildering as to why they're so elusive, but that's how it is, apparently. 

ONE
Glasses. To be specific, eyeglasses, not sunglasses, and I've only got a few criteria. Contacts are out of the question because I'm not a fan of poking and pinching at my eyeballs, plus, I think I'd look weird without glasses, having worn them for so long now. Onto the criteria:

• square-ish frames: (or rather, angular?) not rounded off squares, but decently angular at the corners. I've already got a round face so the frames need to counter that
• medium sized frames: (as in height) I don't want glasses the size of small saucers
• NO cat eyes: a good number of women's glasses are in this style, which I don't think looks good on me. I wonder if it'll ever catch on for men to wear genuine cat eye shaped glasses..
• NO tortoiseshell patterned frames. I hate the way tortoiseshell looks.
• fun colored frames: WHY is this so hard to find? At best, the fun colors will be on the inside of the frames so you only get a glimpse of them when the glasses are worn. Plus, the combination of angular/square and fun colored (on the outside!) is maddeningly elusive. I guess angular/square is stereotypically a more masculine thing, and then the fun colors are more of a girly/feminine thing, so... but honestly, to hell with gender stereotypes about colors and frame styles.  

At this rate, I almost should start my own glasses company and make angular, fun colored frames since there seems to be such a lack of those already on the market. I have some ideas already on what I might name some of the frame styles; one, naturally, I'd gratuitously name after myself (should I use my first name or last name for that? Both of them are fairly common; alas...), and another I would name after the person who I most associate a similar style of glasses with. That's all I have so far, but it's a start! 

 

TWO

 A messenger bag: Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, they say. Backhanded compliments are the least sincere, I say. This, like everything else, I also have particular criteria for, listed as follows:

• Decent capacity, meaning it can hold all the stuff I feel like carrying around on an average school day. This usually consists of a few folders, a regular spiral notebook, a small laptop (Chromebook), a pencil case, a top-bound spiral notebook for newspaper related tasks (reporting notes), and numerous other miscellaneous items.
• SIDE POCKETS. I refuse to use any kind of bag for school if it doesn't have side pockets. Two side pockets, in particular. Maybe if the bag was otherwise perfect and only had one side pocket, I could live with it, but I'd like two nice side pockets. 
• A secure closure (that's also not too fiddly), so things don't fall out. Ideally, a partial flap since I don't really like the amount of extra fabric a full flap entails, but I'm not sure I'd necessarily be able to find one with a partial flap AND all the other features I'd like. 
• Some interior pockets/compartments for organizational purposes, and maybe an outside compartment or two (or three?) as well for convenience's sake. 
• A snazzy color. Life is too short to own things in boring, dull colors. Or at least not brown/tan/black. Gray I can live with, but an even snazzier color would be nice. Say, pastel, perhaps? Could be interesting.
• NOT leather. Too fancy and expensive for a school bag. 

Basically, if the North Face made messenger bags like they make backpacks, that'd be my dream messenger bag, pretty much. Since they don't, my search continues.    

THREE

Tolerable jeans. At the moment, I have three pairs that I like enough to wear on a regular basis (which is pretty much every time I go out of the house if the weather's too cold for bare legs) and no more. Unfortunately, at the time I got those pairs, I didn't think to get multiples pairs of them for when they started to wear out. On the bright side, the one pair that is somewhat noticeably beginning to wear out did end up lasting me at least two years, which isn't so bad. My criteria here:

• ideally, available in short/petite lengths to minimize the need for hemming/rolling up
• NOT too stretchy: many jeans these days have too much stretch in them and do not feel particularly substantial/sturdy. This is supposed to be denim, people. If I wanted to feel like I'm wearing leggings (which I don't; I hate those and refuse to wear them), I'd wear leggings. Also, overly stretchy jean fabric makes me feel like my legs are sausages and the pants are a sausage casing. 
• I guess I'm not too picky about color/wash, but it'd be nice if there were multiple options in the same cut/fit
• NOT high rise. That is just not my thing. 
• straight/skinny leg: these days, it seems that what was considered skinny five years ago is now more of a straight leg. I'm not too particular about the terminology as long as the jeans aren't overly sausage-y but also not too baggy.
• NOT too loose in the back because I'd like these things to look at least sort of flattering. At least as flattering as one can look when you dress as casually (badly? Although I've never actually had anyone tell me that I dress badly. But maybe people are just being polite) as me. In the past, I had multiple pairs of fairly ill-fitting jeans from American Eagle, which I wish I hadn't had the misfortune to wear, because they were wrong in all the ways: too stretchy, some too long, unflattering/too loose in the backside so I always had to pull them up, which was annoying

The three pairs of jeans I currently have (and treasure?) that I actually like enough to wear are the following: 

• a light/medium wash, 99% cotton, size 5S from Hollister. Fabric blends are sort of important since they affect stretchiness or lack thereof. This pair includes measurements on the label: 27 waist, 31 length. I measured my waist yesterday and it was genuinely about 27 or 28 inches. Come to think of it, I have a lighter wash version of these somewhere but I don't know where they went. So make that four pairs? I remember the particular saleslady who helped me to find/pick out these jeans was pleasantly helpful, more so than you'd expect in stores that aren't, say, Nordstrom. I always thought the pocket design on womens (or rather, girls? As it's more of a juniors store/brand) Hollister jeans was vaguely reminiscent of a seashell. 
• a darker wash A&F pair in size 2S, 80% cotton and the rest a blend of polyester and viscose, according to the label. These also have measurements on the label: 26 waist, 31 length. This pair is definitely a couple years old and I think they have redone their sizing by now to make their pants more true to size, so this size 2 pair runs a bit large and maybe fits more like an average size 4 or 6 (? probably more like a 4). The archy pocket design always struck me as distinctive but also fairly minimalist and it irks me probably more than it should that they don't put that on their jeans anymore! 
• a medium wash, boyfriend style J Brand pair in size 25 waist. These particular jeans have a name for the style -- Jake. Like Jake Gyllenhaal (or I guess Jake Tapper, but I thought of Jake Gyllenhaal first), or at least that's what they make me think of, even though I have no idea if the style was specifically named after Jake Gyllenhaal. Boyfriend style means they're a little looser than the other two pairs, but not overly baggy. Supposedly they are low rise, although they fit a bit higher (more like a mid rise?) than my other two pairs. According to the label, the fabric blend is 81% cotton and 19% lyocell, whatever that is. Whatever it is, it's not stretchy since these jeans have a pleasingly sturdy feel to them. I think these run large because a 25 waist seems like it should a bit small for me, but these fit fine. According to the J Brand size chart online, a 25 waist corresponds to a size 4 and a 35.5" hip measurement, so maybe these don't actually run small? I just don't see how a 25 waist is a size 4. Other brands' size charts have a 25 waist as a size zero. Bewildering. If I were to rename this particular style of jeans, I'd name them Isabel (instead of Jake) because they remind me of some jeans an Isabel I know wears (or at least, has worn, on an occasion or two).

As far as new jeans go, I think maybe I should try Lucky Brand and/or Levi's. I have a vague idea of which Lucky Brand cut/style might work for me, but not so much about Levi's, although it is a pretty famous brand of jeans. In any case, it would be nice to have more than only three pairs to choose from.

Anyways, there it is, a thorough rundown of some things I would like to have, yet have not been able to find versions of that meet my criteria. If you've got any suggestions for me (or old DVDs of Peter Sarsgaard movies that you don't want anymore), please send them my way. 

25200696209