America's Greatest Test-Takers

Donald Trump is very proud of his amazing performance on a test which included a measure of his ability to remember five common nouns. (Extra credit for remembering them in the correct order.) However, I believe that he is not properly honoring other great American test-takers and the astonishing scores they managed to rack up in their testicular challenges. To correct this oversight, I am hereby offering the following capsule histories of the most prominent of these extraordinary leaders from our past.

First, there is Richard Nixon, who, in 1973 scored an impressive 97 out of 100 on his “Just How 'Not-a-Crook' Am I?” ethical character exam.

Then, in 1998, Bill Clinton racked up a robust 89 on his “Can You Not Try to Seduce the Next Woman You Meet?” test.

Walter Mondale’s score of 49 (out of 50) on his “How Many States Can You Win in the Next Election?” exam was attention-getting if not quite as amazing as Trump’s five out of five remembered nouns.

Looking further back in history, we should note George Armstrong Custer’s 95 on his “Are You Smarter than a Cheyenne Indian?” final exam.

And, of course, we would be remiss to neglect mention of Benedict Arnold’s straight-up 100 on the “How Truly American Are You?” challenge of 1779.

 My point is simply this: Trump, while glorying in the stable geniosity shown by his noun test, forgot for a moment the incredulous humility for which he is equally well known. So now, Mr. President,  carry on, but please don’t forget these other great American test-takers who have gone before you.

A First Spouse for the Twenty-first Century

I am so mad at Donald Trump. I was really looking forward to seeing Bill Clinton as First Gentleman (or First Dude or First Bubba, or whatever) in the White House this year. I feel sure that he could have proven, once and for all, that a man has what it takes to fulfill this demanding role as well as any woman could.

Disappointed.

But what does the President’s Spouse role actually amount to? According to The Washington Post, a First Lady is expected to “…act as a hostess, and [have] a substantial paid staff (up to two dozen) to assist in planning massive lunches and dinners, supporting whatever cause she adopts and representing the country on goodwill tours.”

I feel Bill could have done all of these things, but now, thanks to President-Won-on-a-Technicality, we’ll never know for sure.

Of course there are those who consider certain aspects of the role of First Lady to be a bit of an anachronism. For example, my wife declared that these aspects amounted to (I am paraphrasing here) a bunch of @#&ing sexist bullshit.*

Still the question remains, who will fulfill this key position, now that Melania has decided that, like most normal human beings, she doesn’t want to live with Donald. For sure, Ivanka won’t do it. She has her hands full helping her dad in his campaign to hide his taxes, silence the media, and intimidate judges. These activities take a lot of energy and we can't expect Ivanka and husband Jared to do all that and cover the First Lady front as well. Meanwhile the boys, Eric and Donald Jr., need to make sure Trump’s economic policies continue to fill his gleaming coffers and ensure a fat inheritance for themselves.

Trump himself must spend his time continuing to “Make People Think He Will Make America Great Again,” in the hopes that he can dupe his Stockholm-syndrome-afflicted base into voting for him in 2020.

Who then, can we find to fulfill the First Lady role? How about Ivana? She might be encouraged to step up and help her former spouse. If patriotic duty isn’t enough to get her to commit, maybe she could take on the role in exchange for a rewrite of her original prenup with Donald.

If Ivana won’t help out, the only option left might be someone from among those various women whom Trump has “touched in a special way.”

It’s not impossible, I think, that we could count on a volunteer from among the ranks of such victimized women to step forward. If necessary, I’m sure we could provide a special secret service detail to protect this brave soul from further grabbing on the part of the president. I know, I know - such protection would undoubtedly cost many thousands of dollars. But is this too high a price to pay? I, for one, think not, especially in light of the money we are already spending just to keep Melania in New York: namely, one million dollars per day.

                              (Thanks CNN)

* Paraphrasing a little because I promised her that I would not let on that blatant sexism can provoke her to the point where she wants to swear like a raging stevedore.