Her Eyes are Up Here, Joe!

A Tale of Two Jackies

What Difference A "D" Makes

Let's set the Way Back machine for 2009. Remember 2009? We had a new President and First Lady in the White House, and repeatedly, continually, the press, commentators and ladies' magazines were all gushing about...the First Lady's well toned arms! Google "First Lady's toned arms 2009" for about 2,650,000 results. Like CNN...

Now, I've seen a workout video Michelle did that was pretty impressive. She could certainly beat up that wimpy husband of hers with one hand tied behind her back! But, where are those people now? The ones who gushed and slobbered all over Michelle's arms? Does not the current First Lady have "toned arms"? Legs? Tummy? Everything?? Face it. Melania Trump is the most beautiful First Lady in the entire history of the United States. Don't you think at least one of those toned arm gushers might find something similar to say about her?

She's gorgeous. She speaks six languages, though some reporters who are less than fluent in one, complain about or make fun of her accent. She's been criticized for the shoes she wore, walking from the White House to a waiting helicopter to travel to visit hurricane victims. While it is true that some faulted her predecessor for the tone deafness of wearing $600 sneakers to help out in a food bank, the circumstances were wildly different.

Face it. Nancy Reagan was pretty. Jackie Kennedy was elegant. Hillary Clinton didn't scare too many children, but Melania is a knockout. Could you guys out there in the MSM cut her a little slack. As the old commercial used to say, "Don't hate me because I'm beautiful". And don't hate her as a means of trying to bring down her husband, with whom you disagree. That's disgusting and should be beneath you.


BTW, if the post headline didn't immediately have Dinah Washington running through your head, shame on you. Remedy to follow...

Chelsea Handler's Beauty Tips

Melania's getting a run for her money! / sarc

Definitely NOT Separated at Birth

Abe Lincoln, Ronald Reagan and Melania Trump Walk into a Bar...

...the bar of high standards. What do these three have in common? Together, I believe they illustrate the difference between plagiarism and allusion. With Melania, the Jayson Blair of presidential candidate's wives, it was clearly plagiarism. Not that it was that big of a deal. No one expected the equivalent of the Gettysburg Address from her. Many people think the unforced error of the kerfluffle which came when the plagiarism came out, with the initial denials from the Trump camp, were largely due to Trump being too cheap to hire a decent speechwriter for her, and the attempt at cover up was just pure Trump.

But I read something by Mike Rowe, of "Dirty Jobs" fame, and former opera singer:

I remember, in the wake of the Challenger disaster, Ronald Reagan gave a truly extraordinary speech. Every sentence was brilliant, but this part was unforgettable.

“We will never forget them, nor the last time we saw them this morning, as they prepared for their journey, waved goodbye, and slipped the surly bonds of earth to touch the face of God.”

I was 22 at the time, and I literally cried when I heard those words. I was truly touched. Later, I learned those words had been written for Reagan by Peggy Noonan. After that, I learned Peggy Noonan had lifted those words from a poem called “High Flight,” written by an airman who died in WWII named John McGee.

Did Ronald Reagan plagiarize Peggy Noonan? Did Peggy Noonan plagiarize John McGee?

Now I'm a little bit older than Mr. Rowe, I predate the 24 hour news cycle. In fact, I not only predate 24 hour news, but I predate 24 hour TV!

Back in the olden days, when there were only three networks, and cable was what you used to suspend bridges, TV stations didn't broadcast 24/7. Typically they ended their "broadcast day" around one or two in the morning. And typically, the station just before signing off the air, would play the National Anthem and a short video of a jet fighter flying, while a narrator recited the poem "High Flight". Having on more than one occasion stayed up past the end of the broadcast day, and because there was literally "nothing else on", people would watch and listen to the stirring words of Airman John McGee. For those of Ronald Reagan, Peggy Noonan and my generation (heady company!), the words of High Flight were totally familiar and totally appropriate for Reagan to allude to. Whippersnappers like Mike Rowe may not have known where the words came from, but there was no attempt at plagiarism there, or anything like it.

But people often attribute a quote to the person they heard it from first. Many people attribute the line to Robert Kennedy that he quoted from George Bernard Shaw:

You see things; and you say “Why?” But I dream things that never were; and I say “Why not?”

A more famous attribution of a literary allusion to the wrong source comes from the aforementioned Gettysburg Address. It concludes:

...that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

Lincoln was alluding to John Wycliffe's prologue to his Bible translation of 1384:

This Bible is for the Government of the People, by the People, and for the People.

Lincoln knew the source of the quote, as, no doubt, did the majority of those who heard it. No one rose up to yell that Lincoln had cribbed part of his speech. But his allusion to it immortalized those words, and today, people who never heard of Wycliffe (that's okay. Today's government schools the kids don't hear about anybody!), have heard his words echo through the years.

So we have one plagiarist, small potatoes in comparison to the plagiarisms of Teddy Kennedy, Joe Biden and even President Obama, and two well read presidents, able to make allusions to words well said by others. If we were to stack every literary or cultural allusion in the same boat as plagiarism, we need to get a bigger boat!*

You may quote me.



* Jaws (1975)


Art by John Cox. More at John Cox Art

"Kleptomelania"

And you may quote her!


Original art by John Cox. More at John Cox Art

Newt Gingrich for Vice President?

There's a rumor making the rounds that Newt Gingrich is not only on Donald Trump's short list of VPs, but that he is the favorite. He certainly has been making the rounds of the talking head programs talking up his buddy Trump. Trump could do a lot worse than Newtie. Of course, Newt comes with some baggage that might not set well with some women voters. So, let's take a look at some of the pros and cons of a Gingrich vice presidency.

On the plus side, Newt is really smart. He's formally educated. He's literate. He's the anti-Trump in this regard. He was the architect and prime mover behind the Contract with America which gave control of the House of Representatives to Republicans, providing balance to the Clinton profligacy, forcing him to balance the national budget, implementing welfare reforms and any number of good things whose successes Bill Clinton took credit for.

Newt knows the ins and outs of getting things done in Washington. He will surely make mincemeat out of anyone the Democrats can dig up in a VP debate. And Newt is fully qualified to assume the Oval Office if, God forbid, something should ever happen to the president. In his presidential bid in 2012, after standing up against a biased media, there was a time when it looked like Newt might take the lead, but it was short lived.* Newt would have been, IMHO, a better candidate than Mitt.

Now the negatives. Newt is not the best liked of politicians. I mentioned a week or so back that a friend of mine from high school demonstrated a visceral hatred of Newt at the mere mention of his name. She repeated the liberal narrative, that Newt had callously handed his first wife her divorce papers while she was laying a hospital bed, racked with disease. And while I don't believe the narrative is true, nonetheless, I doubt her disgust of Newt has moderated any over the years.

Then, there's the question of trade agreements. Newt mentioned just this week that he was the whip that drove NAFTA through the House. Last I heard, NAFTA was still anathema to union guys on the Left. Supposedly there are Bernie voters who talk about gravitating to Trump should Hillary prevail as the Democrat candidate. Now imagine them being asked to hold their nose and vote for a ticket with the father of NAFTA on it? That could prove problematic.

Newt is a brilliant man but he has image problems. Even though in an ideal world that shouldn't matter, in the United States of Kardashia, JFK trumps a Nixon, Reagan trumps Carter and those guys from Air Force One and Independence Day inspire confidence with their square jawed manliness. Newt looks like the kid who gets his lunch money taken away from him.

Will a ticket of two, old white men prevail over the first woman president and a designated minion to be chosen later? Ya pays your money, ya takes your chances!





*Newt and his wife Callista flew off for a vacation in Hawaii in the wake of a very successful debate, reminiscent of Evelle Younger, who, after debating Jerry Brown during his first California gubernatorial re-election bid, flew off to Hawaii with his wife, while Gov. Moonbeam stayed behind, and took to the airwaves of Sacramento radio stations to lie and misrepresent what Younger had said the night before. Both the Gingrichs and the Youngers came back sun-kissed and kissing their elections goodbye.

Politics Makes Strange Bedpersons

Anti-Trump group is running Facebook ads to drive up Mormon turnout in Utah and Arizona. https://t.co/v6ZZPKPMPp pic.twitter.com/Gps5KPbb2T

— McKay Coppins (@mckaycoppins) March 21, 2016

Effective? Or the makings of a very big backfire?