You’ve got what it is (a postcard). You’ve got what it’s about (a protest). You’ve got where it’s happening (Chicago). And when it’s going on (July 2010).

At least four different “folders” you could put it into. But why have to put it in just one? Or better yet, why not just one—one folder for everything, with user tags to make it all accessible?

If every file, no matter what file type, could be user-flagged—if in fact the OS made it a point to gently ensure each file at least gets presented for tags (along with contextual suggestions), none of us humans would ever have to think about directory structure again. We can leave that to the robots; they seem to like that kind of thing.

I could tag that postcard as “postcard,” “protest,” “Aurora” and so forth. I could add tags for “picket” (the kind of protest), “activism” (the larger category of which protest is one kind), “two-color” (the print method) and on and on. The OS will also do as it already does and tag every file with a filetype and datestamp. Then just search for anything you want by tag.

Having everything heaped in one box is messy and confusing for a human being, but robots couldn’t care less. Let the robots search by tags for us, and we can forget all about folders.

No band has inspired me to play so much, and I can credit the Avett Brothers’ music with helping me to improve my guitar playing dramatically. I hope my arrangements will be helpful for others Avett fan guitarists. Check out the page here.

I am what you might call a recipe “aggregator”—when I decide to try a new recipe, I look at a half dozen or more recipes online at favorite sites like All Recipes and the Food Network, and then mix them together on the general principle of putting in the largest amount of each ingredient given across all the recipes—especially the ingredients that are butter.

The tricky ingredient is salt, which is almost always underused; a good rule of thumb is “double the salt,” but you have to take care not to do that if you’re using a recipe by a cook who has already doubled it.

When I first developed this recipe about a year ago, I used the maximum amount of lemon juice and zest I found out there, and then some. But that meant a lot of painful zesting with a ratty old grater. Today I’m trying out a new Microplane Ultimate Citrus Tool. The entire household is giddy with excitement (my wife tells me that’s because it’s Christmas Eve, but I think it’s the new zester).

Crust

• 1 C butter (2 sticks)
• 2 cups flour
• 1/2 C confectioners sugar
• 1/8 t salt

Filling

• 4 beaten eggs
• 2 C sugar
• 6 T flour
• 1/2-2/3 C fresh lemon juice
• 3 T lemon zest
• 1/8 t salt

Process

1. Mix the crust ingredients into a meal-like dough—crumbly and fine, just barely sticking together when pressed.
2. Spread crust mixture in 9″x13″ greased (buttered!) pan lined with wax-paper and then press down firmly and uniformly (the bottom of a cup can help with this)
3. Chill crust for about 30 minutes
4. Bake crust at 350°F for 15-20 minutes
5. Mix the filling ingredients together and pour over hot crust (careful not to let eggs separate out before your pour—whisk before pouring)
6. Bake for 20-25 minutes, until surface is firm

For example, he asked us to believe that what Barack Obama meant when he said he wouldn’t want his daughters “punished with a baby” if they made a mistake was that he wouldn’t want to see them deprived of all the joy that comes from learning that you’re going to become a parent when the time is right. “Punished with a baby” seems like a strange way to put it, but that’s what Obama told Kmiec, and Kmiec bought it.

Now I find this sentence in a National Catholic Reporter article on Obama’s Sotomayor Supreme Court pick:

Frankly, that’s a tough issue in knowing where the government is wrongfully using its funds to penalize you for your point of view differentiates from where the government is expressing its own opinion is often treacherous territory.

Wow. I think I know what he’s trying to say here, but I see at least three different sentences all wrapped up around each other in there like Siamese triplets—what I described to my students at a “mixed construction” when I was a teacher of English composition.

A “mixed construction” is what happens when you start out expressing an idea with one sentence pattern and somewhere in the middle switch to a different, incompatible sentence pattern. It happens all the time to people in live interviews, but it’s not what you expect from a supposedly brilliant scholar writing something for publication.

Kmiec starts off with the wordy and awkward “that’s a tough issue in knowing”—which we could streamline as “it’s tough to know”—but switches to a different construction at the word “differentiates” and then again with the clause “is often treacherous territory.”

He’s losing his place in this sentence just like he does over and over again in the debate with Arkes. You think he’s building up towards a point, when he just veers off into something else. I give Arkes a lot of credit for being able to find points to debate over; I found Kmiec so rambling that I wouldn’t have known where to begin.

Now, for anyone who thinks I’m picking on Kmiec unfairly for one badly-written sentence, there’s also this, the concluding paragraph of the NCR piece:

Of course, this woman is from New York, and at the risk of enormous stereotype of the Empire State, those of us on the West Coast have always noticed a certain—well, curt efficiency—in the New York personality. This is not likely to play as well as the bon vivant boyish charm of John Roberts, but hey, we can’t all smile pretty. And as we say in Malibu, Have a Nice Day!

“At the risk of enormous stereotype”? He sounds drunk. And what’s with the “Have a Nice Day!”? What does that have to do with anything? He really sounds like he’s gone mad.

That’s a very sad thing. I heard Kmiec speak at the Rose Dinner after the 2004 March for Life and was impressed. Along with the whole pro-life movement, I was dismayed when Kmiec came out in favor of Obama. “What can he be thinking?” we all asked.

Now it’s looking more and more like he isn’t thinking at all.

But don’t take my word for it. Kmiec will debate Robert George at the National Press Club this evening at 5 p.m. EDT on the topic “The Obama Administration and the Sanctity of Human Life: Is There a Common Ground on Life Issues? What is the Right Response by Pro-Life Citizens?”

The event is being hosted by the Catholic University of America and will be  moderated by, of all people, Mary Ann Glendon, the Harvard professor who declined to accept Notre Dame’s Laetare Medal this year in protest of the honors being confered on Barack Obama.

Pro-life blogger Jill Stanek is attending the debate and will be live-blogging it, as so will Thomas Peters of American Papist. Afterwards the video will be posted on the CUA website, here.

I’ve never seen Robert George speak, but I’ve read his stuff in First Things. Smart guy. Should be an interesting debate.

Slow Joe has apparently forgotten about Aaron Burr, Vice President under Thomas Jefferson in his first term, 1801-1805.

Burr is most famous for killing Alexander Hamilton in a duel in 1804, during which Hamilton reportedly shot wide; Burr shot to kill.

Had he done nothing worse to harm his country than that, he’d still be in the running for Biden’s “most dangerous VP ever” award. As the first Secretary of the Treasury, Hamilton saved the young republic from economic catastrophe through a federal “bailout” of the states’ Revolutionary War debts. He had more to offer the nation he helped found.

But Aaron Burr is also notable for conspiring with General James Wilkinson—who was in the pay of the Spanish—to seize land in the west and create his own empire. Wilkinson was also guilty of encouraging settlers in Tennessee and Kentucky to secede and join the Spanish American Empire.

Burr was a scoundrel of scoundrels—there’s no comparison between him and Dick Cheney, however much you may hate Cheney.

But sadly, few Americans know their history these days, and guys like Biden can get away with ridiculous statements like the one tonight about holders of the office he is seeking.

YouTuber “TheMouthPeace” links the current economic crisis to the Community Redevelopment Act passed under Carter and expanded in 1995 by Clinton, which required banks to increase their sub-prime lending.

Also shows that George Bush in 2003 and John McCain in 2005 tried to rein in Fannie Mae, only to be thwarted by Democrats like Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and—yes—Barack Obama (who, incidentally, received 29 times as much cash from Fannie Mae as McCain.

I don’t know if this guy’s analysis is correct, but some of the facts he brings out are both stunning and maddening—maddening, because I’m not hearing anything from the McCain campaign about this stuff.

Check it out and pass it on.

That’s debatable to say the least, as is whether Obama can actually deliver on the particular campaign promises attractive to some, mostly liberal, Catholics. But aside from those arguments, there is entirely different calculus by which liberal Catholics would do best to vote for John McCain in 2008.

Let me first clarify that I’m speaking here of those liberal Catholics—a majority, I think—who believe with the Church that abortion is a grave injustice, even if they are of mixed opinions on what the legal status of abortion ought to be.

In a nutshell, liberal Catholics should vote for John McCain to take abortion off the national table. That issue, more than any other, stands in the way of the domestic and foreign policies liberal Catholics want to see enacted.

What liberal Catholics—liberals in general—don’t understand about conservative Catholics is that they are far more loyal to the vision of Pope John Paul II than that of Ronald Reagan.

They vote Republican because they were taught by John Paul II that protecting the lives of unborn children is their most important political task—”the most important work on earth”, as he said to pro-life leader Fr. Paul Marx—and far more often than not, the pro-life candidate is the Republican.

Now, I happen to be a fan of Ronald Reagan. I voted for him in my first election, in 1984. During a liberal phase in my twenties, I disavowed my earlier support for Reagan, even voting for Bill Clinton in 1992. I still opposed abortion then, but I reasoned that Clinton’s plans—like a national health care system—would dramatically reduce abortion.

I was wrong about that—as wrong as Obama’s Catholic supporters are now in arguing his policies would substantially reduce abortion—but in the mean time I’ve returned to espousing the conservative political views championed by Ronald Reagan.

But there are many other Catholics who are loyal to the Republican party, on the national level, not because they are Reaganite conservatives, but because they know the only way that Roe v. Wade is going to be overturned is if a Republican president appoints more justices to the Supreme Court in the mold of Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Scalia.

And while it’s true that Reagan appointees O’Connor and Kennedy and Bush 41 appointee Souter proved to be tremendous disappointments to pro-life Catholics, Thomas (Bush 41) and Roberts and Alito (Bush 43) have restored the hope of one day overturning Roe v. Wade. One more constitutionalist on the court could mean the end of Roe v. Wade.

That, of course, would not mean the end of abortion in the United States—it would only be the beginning of the state-by-state battle over abortion that should have taken place in the 1970s.

But the reversal of Roe v. Wade could mean the end of abortion politics in national elections—or at least radically diminish the importance of abortion in presidential and congressional races.

And for liberal Catholics—especially those who are willing to describe themselves as pro-life—that could mean a new opportunity to join forces with the those conservative John Paul II Catholics who are sympathetic to traditionally liberal positions.

If liberal Catholics are really serious about advancing issues like these, they would to well to vote for John McCain on November 4, with a view to gaining future allies among those John Paul II Catholics who will never vote for a candidate who claims to seek social justice while condoning the legalized killing of 1.2 million unborn babies every year.

That injustice was paramount for John Paul II. Once that injustice is no longer being perpetuated by the federal government, John Paul II Catholics will gratefully embrace the opportunity to deliberate policies addressing the many other social injustices the late Pope spoke out against. Many of them will become allies of liberal Catholics on issues like immigration, a living wage and the death penalty.

But if liberal Catholics choose instead to vote for Barack Obama—in an election where Catholics votes will decide the outcome—they could be ensuring that abortion will remain on the national table, a perpetual hindrance to moving forward on the issues they really care about.

Jim writes:

You of all people should understand nuance.

Nuance? Damon’s remarks about Sarah Palin exhibit all the nuance of sledghammer—a big, puffy clown sledgehammer made of styrofoam, equally incapable of achieving subtle effect or landing a telling blow.

Nuance would be to say that, while Sarah Palin has—like all state governors—sought federal money for various projects in her state, she has also substantially reduced earmarks in Alaska.

But our partisan mainstream media—let alone the likes of Matt Damon—aren’t the least bit interested in nuance. The McCain campaign’s claim that Palin has reduced earmarks in Alaska is somehow taken as a claim that Palin has refused to take a single federal dollar for her state, and then characterized as a “lie” because in fact some federal dollars have gone to Alaska.

Or, to take an example from the Gibson interview you alluded to, a photograph of Sarah Palin sporting a “Nowhere, Alaska” T-shirt is construed as evidence that she was always and ever an ardent supporter of that bridge; maybe she was, but a more nuanced interpretation of the T-shirt would be that it shows her support for Gravina Island—as well as her sense of humor.

More on nuance in a minute.

I know you are a brilliant person with a great mind, you always were, but has your fight for one issue so blinded you that you do not see the tremendous harm the far right has caused this country over the last eight years.

It’s not much consolation, Jim, to be told that I’m a “brilliant person with a great mind” only to be accused, in the same sentence, no less, that I’m “blinded.”

As a matter of fact, I care deeply about many issues. The abortion issue is paramount to me, as you know—and often it’s the make or break issue for how I cast my vote. During the primaries, when the presence of several pro-life candidates on the Republican ticket gave me the luxury of considering other issues, I didn’t vote McCain.

I will vote for McCain on November 4 not with “blinders” on, but in the cold light of day—it is the politically most pragmatic vote for me to cast. The issues I care about will be better served—in some cases, less harmed—by a McCain administration.

One of those issues, overlapping but not coextensive with the abortion issue, is judicial appointments. In the past twelve months, I’ve been involved in three different federal cases, and another that may reach the federal level before the end. So I care an awful lot about the judicial philosophy of appointees to the federal court.

I don’t have the slightest doubt that Barack Obama would appoint liberal activist judges, perpetuating the liberal bent of the Supreme Court on such issues as the establishment clause, the equal protection clause, and of course abortion; and appointing judges to the Seventh Circuit who will tend to be hostile to my side in those cases that arise form my work (which aren’t always “abortion cases”, though too often pro-lifers have a hard time convincing the court of that).

I also disagree with Obama on energy policy, environmental policy, foreign relations, the U.S. mission in Iraq, the role of religion in public life, and more.

Now, if I could fashion my ideal presidential candidate out of clay, I can assure you it wouldn’t be John McCain. Actually, it might look an awful lot like Sarah Palin, a few years on.

But I don’t get to do that. In the real world, I have a choice between Barack Obama, who I stand in opposition to on nearly everything (and whose only significant accomplishment in life is having run for president) and John McCain, who I stand together with on some matters (and who has long years in government).

Abortions, teen pregnancies, all of the things you rally against have INCREASED over the last four years.

That’s news to me. I know you’re wrong about the abortion rate; not only have total numbers of abortions gone down, but given population increase, the rate has gone down more.

It’s still astronomically high, though. But don’t collapse the entire pro-life political program into the reduction of abortions. There’s also the long-term campaign to overturn Roe v. Wade, which Bush advanced substantially when he replaced Sandra Day O’Connor with John Roberts, and when he signed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban and the Born Alive Infants Protection Act into law.

Bush also restored Ronald Reagan’s Mexico City Policy, and, recently, provided conscience-rights protection to health care workers, so that they will not be forced to participate in taking the lives of unborn human beings.

Bush has been far from the ideal pro-life president. But he has, on the whole, helped the pro-life movement.

Damon’s comments are understandable given that Palin has given just ONE interview since she was selected vice president two weeks ago. What do we know about her?

I chuckle. The way we get to know somebody is by having them interviewed by Charlie Gibson? Please.

Charlie Gibson never interviewed George Washington, but we know an awful lot about him. He gave speeches. He enacted policies. He made political alliances and earned political enemies. And so forth.

Likewise, Sarah Palin has a record. She’s been involved in public affairs for decades. That’s why she was being touted as a VP candidate by some Republicans as long ago as early last year. She didn’t actually come into being the moment her face first appeared on MSNBC.

If you and Matt Damon know so little about Sarah Palin, it’s because you haven’t really been trying.

And what little you think you know seems to have been culled from the Daily Kos. For example:

Is she a total creationist, does she believe in evolution?

Why on earth does that matter? What possible difference can it make in her possible vice-presidential role or what policies she would pursue in the unlikely event she were to succeed tough-as-nails John McCain?

Why are you and Damon even asking this question? I don’t remember ever hearing this question raised about a presidential or vice-presidential candidate before. Why aren’t you demanding the same answers from Joe Biden—or Obama? Or McCain for that matter?

This question is only asked because of those false rumors—one of so many—that surfaced from the left of the blogosphere immediately upon her selection as McCain’s running mate.

And that ought to trouble you, Jim—that demonstrably false rumors and deliberate mischaracterizations have become the basis of what claims to be legitimate reporting on who Sarah Palin is.

But the idea that Palin is a benighted creationist—and a “holy war monger”, and an anti-abortion zealot, etc.—fits so neatly with the left’s caricature of the right, especially the socially conservative right.

You and Matt Damon really don’t understand how badly you just don’t get us. And, frankly, I hesitate to disabuse you, because “know thine enemy” is damn good advice; on one level I’d just as soon you remain in the dark. (Not that we’re enemies, really—but we are enemies in Election ‘08.)

I wish that instead of the caricature—the idea that only the blind or foolish could disagree with your policy positions—we could start with the shared belief that reasonable people can disagree about policies—that in the end we share a common concern for the welfare of this nation, but differ about how to accomplish it.

I get why you support Barack Obama. You describe yourself as “very liberal,” and so is Obama. He’s your guy. I get it. And I’m not going to accuse you of being “blind” to his pro-abortion record; I assume you think other issues outweigh that.

I disagree with you, of course, but I’m not going to insult your intelligence for your choice. I wish you could cut me the same slack.

But the left is committed to the idea that only rubes or villains—the “blinded” in your terms—could possibly disagree with their views on everything from foreign policy to abortion. That’s sad.

But what’s encouraging is that this whole Palin affair has exposed the left’s smug, snearing condescension as nothing else ever has before. It’s true that some—even many—on the right are intolerant of liberals (vis Michael Savages “Liberalism Is a Mental Illness”), but the whole nation is seeing that intolerance is far more dominant on the left.

And quite honestly . . . what does she think about dinosaurs? Sometimes the dumbest questions can reveal the most telling answers.

Indeed. In this case, the revelation is that the real dinosaur here is Left wing of American politics—and we’re witnessing its extinction right now.

Not national defense, energy, healthcare, the economy, infrastructure or the housing crisis. No—of all the issues confronting our nation, the one that really troubles Matt Damon is dinosaur policy. Because of the nukes, of course.

I dunno—is Damon is angling to be appointed Ambassador to the Dinosaurs under an Obama administration? Is he afraid Palin plans to nuke the dinosaurs?

All I can say is, I’m glad someone has finally had the courage to bring up the thorny question of what we ought to do about dinosaurs. Matt Damon wants to know. He needs know.

Matt Damon, defender of the dinosaurs.