ANDREW SULLIVAN LAUNCHES A BIT OF A CHEAP SHOT, in this post on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit’s decision upholding the dumb Alabama sex toy law: “Lawrence vs Texas doesn’t seem to be having much of an impact in the South. Surprise, surprise.”

Yet — as I noted before Lawrence was decided — state courts in many southern states had already found that homosexual sodomy was protected by a right of privacy under their state constitutions, in direct opposition to the U.S. Supreme Court’s contrary holding under the federal constitution in Bowers v. Hardwick, which was reversed by Lawrence. The U.S. Supreme Court was a follower, not a leader here. (And, though I don’t mention it in the piece linked above, a Louisiana appellate court even ruled that dildos are protected under that state’s constitution as outside the government’s legitimate regulatory power.) So I think Andrew’s casual slur is misplaced, and unworthy of him.

AMIR TAHERI has posted a critique of Kerry’s foreign policy. One-word summary: “Carteresque.”

It does shed some light on Kerry’s language from tonight’s speech about “responding” to attacks rather than preventing them.

UPDATE: Robert Tagorda wonders whether Kerry & Edwards want “stability,” or democracy in Iraq.

BEGGING TO DIFFER wonders if Kerry will respond to Al Sharpton on reparations? Not if he can help it, is my guess — though reportedly the campaign has said that he supports them.

CONVENTION BLOGGER ADELE STAN REPORTS:

BOSTON–Well, they’ve just passed out excerpts from the text of Kerry’s acceptance speech. I wish I could say that it looks like a knock-out, but if these are any indication, we can expect the same sort of buzz-word loaded stuff we hear on the campaign trail.

Maybe it’ll sound livelier than it looks in print.

JOE KATZMAN has a Darfur roundup. And via the comments there, here’s a draft of a hoped-for Bush speech on Darfur.

ANN ALTHOUSE has a number of interesting posts on the Convention, and also observes that The Daily Show’s coverage isn’t nearly as funny as it ought to be.

THE PRIESTS are nervous.

UPDATE: Reader Dexter Van Zile has further thoughts. Click “more” to read them.

(more…)

IS IT THE RETURN OF JOEMENTUM?

TACITUS thinks that the Convention bodes poorly for the Democrats.

UPDATE: More predictions of disaster here.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Gerard Van der Leun thinks that Kerry is doomed: “it is no longer a question of Kerry and the Democrats losing in November, but only one of how great and lasting their humiliation and degradation is going to be.”

GREG DJEREJIAN IS UNIMPRESSED with Josh Marshall’s claims of a July surprise being underway.

UPDATE: Jan Haugland has comments, too: “If this recent accusation is true, Bush has already won the terror war decisively, just waiting for the perfect time to cash in the prize.”

I have to say, I’ve never heard of Ahmed Ghailani. Neither, I strongly suspect, have very many potential voters. Which to me makes it absurd to argue that Bush is trying to upstage Kerry by yelling “look! we captured Ahmed Ghailani!” — to an inevitable chorus of “who?”

I mean, Osama, or Zarqawi, maybe. But if you set the threshold this low, then the prediction becomes trivial: “They’ll probably try to make hay out of any Al Qaeda guy they capture close to the Convention.”

Yes. But that’s not news. That’s the normal order of business.

MORE: Tom Maguire observes:

MORE: Actually, the TNR second paragraph was “This spring, the administration significantly increased its pressure on Pakistan to kill or capture Osama bin Laden, his deputy, Ayman Al Zawahiri, or the Taliban’s Mullah Mohammed Omar…”, so I can be a bit flexible. But Number 22? No crow for me, thanks, but I may have some Buffalo Wings later. Unless the networks cut away, forget it.

Yeah, like that’s going to happen. Tom has many more useful links. And LT Smash collects many comments, some rather overheated. It seems that the people playing up Ghailani’s importance are mostly Bush critics, which should tell you all you need to know about what’s going on here.

BIG MEDIA BLOGGING: Mark Glaser writes on the sincerest form of flattery.

I’m going to try an experiment in collaborative liveblogging during and after Kerry’s speech (10 ET), so drop by.

UPDATE: David Adesnik:

Even though I am a huge fan of blogs [Full disclosure: I have a blog myself. -ed.], I don’t think we revolutionized coverage of this convention. After all, how can you revolutionize coverage of a non-event? In that sense, our failure was inevitable.

On the other hand, if blogging doesn’t add anything to the mix, why are mainstream journalists starting up blogs by the busload? TNR and TAP set up their blogs quite a while ago, but still felt compelled to set up new blogs dedicated exclusively to the convention.

The Associated Press has set up a convention blog staffed by a Pulitzer Prize winner with 40 years of experience covering conventions. That’s got to be a blogosphere first.

What all of this suggests is that there is an emerging distinction between blogging as a medium and bloggers as people.

Interesting point.

IN ESQUIRE, LIBERAL TOM JUNOD lays out the case for George Bush:

I didn’t know anything about the cadet. About President George W. Bush, though, I felt the satisfaction of absolute certainty, and so uttered the words as essential to my morning as my cup of Kenyan and my dose of high-minded outrage on the editorial page of the Times : “What an asshole.” . . .

Then I read the text of the speech he gave and was thrown from one kind of certainty—the comfortable kind—into another. He was speaking, as he always does, of the moral underpinnings of our mission in Iraq. He was comparing, as he always does, the challenge that we face, in the evil of global terrorism, to the challenge our fathers and grandfathers faced, in the evil of fascism. He was insisting, as he always does, that the evil of global terrorism is exactly that, an evil—one of almost transcendent dimension that quite simply must be met, lest we be remembered for not meeting it . . . lest we allow it to be our judge. I agreed with most of what he said, as I often do when he’s defining matters of principle. No, more than that, I thought that he was defining principles that desperately needed defining, with a clarity that those of my own political stripe demonstrate only when they’re decrying either his policies or his character. . . .

As easy as it is to say that we can’t abide the president because of the gulf between what he espouses and what he actually does , what haunts me is the possibility that we can’t abide him because of us—because of the gulf between his will and our willingness. What haunts me is the possibility that we have become so accustomed to ambiguity and inaction in the face of evil that we find his call for decisive action an insult to our sense of nuance and proportion.

Read the whole thing. Will Kerry answer these criticisms tonight?

UPDATE: Hmm. In the advance excerpts of Kerry’s speech that the Democrats have emailed out, I see this bit:

Let there be no mistake: I will never hesitate to use force when it is required. Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response. I will never give any nation or international institution a veto over our national security. And I will build a stronger American military.

(Emphasis added.) That seems a bit, well, reactive, doesn’t it? Wouldn’t it be better to prevent attacks? Meanwhile Ed Driscoll has comments on Junod’s piece.

HOME NOW. Blogging will resume later.

In the meantime, Daniel Drezner is metablogging in a highly interesting fashion.

DUMB ALABAMA SEX TOY LAW UPHELD:

Americans do not have a fundamental right to sexual privacy, a 2-1 decision of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said on Wednesday.

The split panel upheld an Alabama law — nearly identical to one in Georgia — that made the sale of sex toys a crime punishable by up to a year in prison.

I haven’t read the 11th Circuit opinion, but this seems implausible in light of Lawrence.

HERE’S THE LATEST ON THE KERRY PHOTO FLAP:

As political pundits and comedians pounced on the pictures of Kerry in what outsiders might deem a goofy-looking costume, the senator’s campaign aides alleged the pictures were not supposed to be released publicly.

Not true, said NASA. Government photographers routinely snap pictures of visiting dignitaries. . . .

Furthermore, NASA spokesman Bill Johnson said the Kerry campaign asked that the pictures be taken of the senator’s unusually up-close tour of the Discovery and that processing be expedited so reporters could have them.

Kerry’s staff turned a little story into a big one by charging NASA with dirty tricks here. It wasn’t a smart move.

MORE CRUSHING OF DISSENT: Taegan Goddard has the story on a fired DNC blogger.

UPDATE: Goddard now says that he wasn’t fired after all — go read the update.

JAMES LILEKS:

Teddy Kennedy said in his convention speech: “The only thing we have to fear is four more years of George Bush.” It’s really quite simple, isn’t it? We live in a manufactured climate of fear ginned up by war-crazed neocon overlords. There is no threat. The only thing we have to fear is Bush, who sits as we speak in the Oval Office sucking the marrow from Whoopi’s shin-bones.

If so, I wonder why anyone agreed to the stringent security policies that characterize this year’s conventions. Why the bomb-sniffing dogs? Why the snipers? Why the metal detectors, the invasive inspection of bags? Is it all an elaborate defense against Bush crashing the party and setting off a bomb belt, shouting God is Great, y’all!

No, they’re fearful of something else.

Damned if I know what, though.

MICKEY KAUS gives Edwards qualified praise, though he observes something I noted last night: “Like many great performers, he’s reached the stage where his tricks and mannerisms have become self-conscious and exaggerated–he’s added a layer of parody and smug confidence on top of them (including an annoying ‘that-line-will-work’ smirk at inappropriate times) that makes them less effective.” Overall, though, Mickey pronounces the speech a success. Andrew Sullivan thinks Edwards sounded tough on the war; Kaus doesn’t.

Jeff Taylor, on the other hand, doesn’t think so: “Edwards’ speech stacked up the gifts a Kerry administration would bestow upon Americans like the final, desperate appeal of an infomercial. . . . But it sets up a perfect pitch for the GOP to knock out of the park, as they have done on tax issues for 20 years now.” More comments from Nick Gillespie (“having a father who worked in a mill (some of the time as a supervisor!) means never having to say you’re wealthy”), and a link to the text of Edwards’ speech, here.

THE MULTILATERAL BUSH ADMINISTRATION:

What might be Caspian Guard’s deeper mission? Take a look at a couple of maps, one of Azerbaijan’s neighborhood and one of Kazakhstan’s. What do they have in common? Both are central Asian states with coasts on the Caspian Sea, and both either share a border with or are across the water from Iran. Caspian Guard is to Iran what the PSI is to North Korea — a cage in the making, constructed by the Bush administration’s State Department. Look for several other US-leaning states in the area, such as Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan, and possibly even Turkey, to either join the Caspian Guard or cooperate with it in significant ways. The US will begin to encircle Iran, the world’s most dangerous remaining Islamic state, the way it is attempting to encircle North Korea, all to strangle their nuclear proliferation programs and over time halt their nuclear programs altogether. Additionally, Caspian Guard gives member states access to US training and tactical knowledge and the assurance of friendly relations with the world’s sole superpower in exchange for assistance in dealing with some of the axis of evil’s charter members.

He’s got some interesting maps, too.

GOT BACK in time to see Edwards speak. Not bad, but not up to his usual standards. He seems nervous. He’s talking too fast, and he’s blinking nonstop.

UPDATE: More Obama praise here. He’s clearly the winner, so far.

I’LL BE DRINKING BEER tonight. I strongly recommend that you do the same. But if you’re bored, you might want to check out a special late-posted Bleat from James Lileks, featuring his response to a French journalist. (And this post goes nicely with it.)

Also, the InstaWife’s latest project — a series on the Oxygen Channel called Snapped that starts next week — has an online preview that’s up now. Check it out if the creaky state of the Web permits.

MY TECHCENTRALSTATION COLUMN IS UP: “The solution is thus obvious — we need a massive government program to ensure that no American teenager goes without porn and videogames.” (Am I serious? I’ll leave that as an exercise for the reader!)

Tom Maguire is on a roll — just keep scrolling. And Jim Treacher has advice on other things you should read, if you’re not interested in reading all the convention blogs.

I’m heading off to visit my brother overnight. Blogging will be light for a while. Be sure you scroll down to check the numerous updates on earlier posts. Or just watch this video on Kerry and Iraq.

YESTERDAY’S POST on science fiction led to more requests for suggestions. Unfortunately, I’ve been too busy reading serious work-related stuff to have a lot of recent reads to suggest.

I did enjoy Ken MacLeod’s Dark Light, and I have the sequel on the shelf, but I haven’t gotten to it. I’d have more time to read science fiction if I were blogging less, but. . . .

SHOCKED, SHOCKED:

At a closed meeting held recently in New York, UN ambassadors from Arab and EU countries met and the Arabs made clear that they do not accept the initiative for the UN General Assembly to condemn anti-Semitism.

The blunt language used by the Arabs describing their opposition, and their plans to use diplomatic means to prevent the resolution from reaching a vote, shocked the Europeans, said a UN source.

I’m less surprised at this development.

DEAN ESMAY offers an interesting question for conservatives: If Kerry is elected, will they try to support him if he does the right thing, or will they degenerate into partisan backbiting as Democrats did after 2000 (and as Republicans did after 1992):

I don’t want to hear why you think it won’t happen. Indulge me: pretend it might. How many of you will have the patriotism to say, “I disagree with many of his policy directions, I do not think he is conducting our foreign policy in the right way, but I will do my best to get behind him and support him until elections come around next time?”

I’m genuinely curious. For that is the stance I intend to take. I will refuse to call him traitor, loser, liar, incompetent. He will be my President, my Commander In Chief, the Chief Executive of a great nation, elected by the will of a majority of the electors in these 50 great united States. So even if he does things I disagree with in conducting foreign policy, I will say, “I respectfully disagree with the President’s directions, but I will do my best to express my dissent respectfully and hope that I am mistaken and that he has made the proper decisions after all.”

That’s my pledge. How many of you will take a similar one?

Although I’m a liberal blogger, that’s certainly how I intend to act, should Kerry be elected. There’s some interesting stuff in Dean’s comments, where most people seem to take the same line. It does, however, raise the problem identified in this comment to Bigwig’s pro-Kerry post:

Aren’t you basically saying that Republicans can be counted on to support the country and the WoT if a Democrat is in office, but not vice versa? This argument lets the Democrats who would rather control the White House than have the U.S. remain safe and secure off the hook. Not a good precedent. Rather Kerry and the Democratic party should be punished for undermining Bush and creating the division in the country, not rewarded!

I’ll still take the pledge, but this is worth thinking about. That sort of incentive structure seems dangerous.