Skip to main content

A letter to Rachel

I just wrote this letter to Rachel Maddow.

Hi Rachel, and her team,

(Disclaimer: I wanted to write something shorter and more to the point, but this wound up being shaped in my mind like one of your A-blocks, with a somewhat-random-and-seemingly-out-of-the-blue starting point that comes around to underscore the point that is being crafted for the end just before the break.  Please understand that as you start this.)

While I love to laugh and know the value of laughter to help us through tough times, I have been frustrated on occasion with the laughter that happens on any number of news shows when describing our illustrious President's behavior.  Don't get me wrong, I understand that things are so bizarre for normal, rational people that it seems uncomfortable and inconceivable that someone would act the way he acts, and so we laugh.  However, it is my opinion and belief that serious times and serious actions call for serious people and serious responses.  When King George III was taxing and not allowing representation, I'm certain that informed people were shocked, and I'm sure that on occasion they laughed at the absurdity of the events, however, they would eventually throw the tea in the harbor.  

As I sit here listening to your show from Friday, I find you voicing the same question I have been asking myself when it comes to President Trump.  "How do you fight that?"    

Up until now I've compared the President's actions to those of a grade-school bully.  The problem here, of course, is that the teacher or principal to whom we would complain are willing to accept the bully's behavior and look the other way.  As I listened to you ask that question, though, I had a thought different to those I've had on this matter up until now.  Perhaps rather than looking at him as a bully we should consider his actions to be those of an insidious magician or underhanded carny.  He's the showman with the sleight of hand, distracting us while his partners mill about the crowd lifting cash and wallets, watches and rings.  Maybe instead of pursuing the tack of complaining to the teacher, or to the head of the carnival (who is undoubtedly also in on the fix) it is time for us as rational, serious people to stand at the side of the stage and point out the sleight of hand, advising anyone within the sound of our voices to look away from the barker and turn their attention to those who are actually doing the work that is the purpose of the show.  

There are magicians who produce videos of how some of the "greatest" tricks are done, not to ruin the art, or to tear down the people performing those tricks, but to educate the public and to force the people in the business to stop relying on old tricks and to get back to the work of crafting new things that will amaze their audiences.  Now then, perhaps President Trump will, in time, devise new tricks to distract those who would not heed the warnings, but maybe, just maybe (and this is my hope) pointing out his arts of distraction and the skulduggery from which those distractions are diverting our attention will lift the spell just long enough to help enough people become outraged and motivated enough to come together and force the circus to pack up and leave town.

That is the tack I am going to attempt in my small circle of influence.  I was fascinated by your succinct compilation of all the things that had happened, stories that had broken behind the veil of his tweets against the Morning Joe team.  Please, please, continue to use your circle of influence to bring people's attention to the chicanery, in order to educate us more about how this works, and to the machinations which it is intended to hide, in order to instill understanding about what we are losing.  And when we have unmasked the wizard, de-toothed the dragon, and thrown the metaphorical tea into the harbor, then we can truly laugh, because we all know that (s)he who laughs last laughs best.

very gratefully and sincerely,
Michael McCown

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

All for one?

Yesterday I was in a union meeting.  Among other things, a brief discussion was had about the evolution of individual contracts versus group contracts in particular among ballet and theater companies, not necessarily on the opera side of things.  It was pointed out that the movement began primarily because more and more dancers wanted to be seen as soloists in the troupe rather than "ensemble dancers", and they wanted to negotiate their own contracts accordingly.  Over time that has led to less negotiating power for dancers, ultimately developing into much lower pay, often the legal minimum salary for dancers. That led me to connect the dots between that devolution of solidarity in the ranks of ballet troupes where each had been a part of the braided fabric, strong and durable, to the political devolution we're starting to see around the world.  For some time now, countries have been murmuring about wanting out of the EU.  Granted, there are positives and nega...

Give an Inch to Gain a Mile

Imagine with me, if you will, a non-railed causeway that is just  wide enough for two cars to pass. Now imagine that you are driving a car on that causeway when you look up and see another car coming at you.  You need to get to the other side.  They need to get to the other side.  It seems scary and dangerous to move over.  There's no railing, and a precipitous drop into the water awaits if you go too far.  As I see it, there are five options: 1) Back up until you get to the start of the causeway so that the other car can get past you and out of your way. 2) Force the other driver to back up until you can get past him. 3) Sit there bumper to bumper and don't go anywhere. 4) Try to shove the other car off the causeway. 5) Carefully move to the side while the other driver does the same in order to provide space for both cars to get where they're going. Options 1 and 2 put one of the drivers in the position that they might encounter the same situatio...