The joy of bachelorhood

Wardrobe malfunctions plague me lately, so I got out my dainty sewing basket and went to work. All is well. I sewed the buttons on conventionally, but stitching the long tear in my favorite work shirt seamed* too tedious. The alternative solution is working fine so far. If it stands up to a few wash cycles I will enthusiastically endorse Gorilla tape for purposes of fashion.

-0-

*Hush up. It' a gift.

Let's be careful out there; an informant has reported the Hubris Gang is on the streets

Another morning note to my buddy, dealing with a more practical aspect of the final two weeks in the corn fields and hog lots:

----

Hi Dick,

At this moment Paul may be the clear favorite here. This exposes him to dat ol'debbil game of expectations.

1. In the two weeks remaining he will suffer unremitting negative attacks. They will center on general goofiness and advanced age with a strong undertone of alleged racism and anti-semitism.

2. These will have some effect, perhaps enough to deny him victory or even a strong second-place finish.

3. If that happens he will enter New Hampshire weaker, and his small but increasing support in South Carolina and Florida will deteriorate. Super Tuesday will be a Newt Romney walkaway.

The other danger here is really energized preachers pounding their KJVs. There's still time for them to coalesce around one of their own.  Bachmann, in particular, is running a near-perfect end-game race.

Jim

The Great Debate -- Iowa Caucuses 20112

My pal Dick is my old high school debate partner, and I immodestly report we tucked a bronze or two in the trophy case. This post is a little obscure for anyone not familiar with formal debate, but, what the Hell. Some readers are. Others are free to move on until I get back to my favorite hobby, posting retro cheesecake and gun porn. :)

---------

Dick emailed me a positive Christian Science Monitor  piece on Ron Paul. The reply:

------

Scene: The National Forensic League national final in traditional debate. PBS teevee cameras are rolling:

Paul is the first-negative speaker who spends his first three minutes admitting "need" but criticizing the  affirmative's analysis of the nature of the need. In his seven remaining minutes he presents an alternative solution, a counter-plan. Even if somewhat faulty, it boasts internal consistency, unheard of in either academic or political disputation.

Discombobulated, the second affirmative stumbles through disjointed short takes about the unfairness of trick cases. Second negative reestablishes the logic and real-world pertinence of its program. First affirmative has had time to recover a semblance of coherence as that term is understood by, say, Kingman Brewster and Teddy Kennedy. 

This is enough for the judges who, by training and experience,  have never in their  lives faced a problem to which the solution was not government-inspired. The  remaining rebuttals are largely  ignored. Decision for the affirmative. 

But the nature of debate is forever changed.  

:)  

Fair warning. Intense political content to follow.

The two upcoming posts are purely political, my end of a small dialog with a university professor. (As Mayor Daly the would have characterized it, "We've been boyhood friends all our lives.")  So if you're not much interested in poltics, I recommend skipping them.

Me? I try to remember that politics is how we decide, for instance, if I may keep alittle of what I earn. Or own a LeMat without a permission slip from Eric Holder.  I think that makes it kind of important.