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.

ARNOLD KLING writes that we’re not really in a war of ideas.

DARFUR UPDATE: The Ottawa Citizen editorializes:

The Sudanese government made a false promise to protect the people in Darfur, and has threatened guerrilla war if other nations try to help them. Courage must replace patience in dealing with Khartoum.

Under the cover of a 21-year civil war, the Arab Islamist government in Khartoum has been using bandit gangs called Janjaweed to drive black people in its western territory from their homes. The gangs are made up of nomads threatened by desertification and who are loyalists of President Omar el-Bashir; the farmers in Darfur have land Mr. el-Bashir wants to give them. The farmers are also Muslim, though not generally Islamists. . . .

The United States and Britain are pushing a Security Council resolution to impose trade sanctions, but they’re having trouble getting it passed. Pakistan and China, for instance, are hesitant to interfere with Sudan’s oil trade, which supplies about 300,000 barrels a day to Asia, partly pumped by a Chinese company.

The critics of the war in Iraq, those who said that was all about oil, are silent. France, the great multilateralist, has given just $6 million to a UN fund for Darfur, which Mr. Annan says needs $350 million. (The Americans have found $130 million so far.)

But for the aid to mean anything, the people of Darfur must have security, which Mr. Ismail has indicated the Sudanese government will deny them. These are the words of both a terrorist and a promoter of genocide, not a man who will be swayed by threats of trade sanctions. The world has dithered and innocents have died. It’s time to find the nerve to act.

Multilateralism is failing again.

UPDATE: More on Sudan here, and, of course, there’s this point: “As was the case in Iraq, France also has significant oil interests in Sudan.” And once again, they’re running interference for a murderous dictator.

NICK GILLESPIE:

Somewhere during Teresa Heinz Kerry’s long, meandering speech that only drew plaudits from party loyalists, I became convinced that she is, in fact, a Republican operative in deep, deep, deep cover. . . . If the Heinz Kerry speech served one useful function for the Dems, it’s that it lowered the bar for the last two days of the convention, which so far has been a pretty dreary, uninteresting, and unmoving spectacle.

He didn’t like Jimmy Carter’s speech much, either. The Kerry folks should be glad that his views aren’t reflective of the media in general. Meanwhile Robert Spencer wonders why the Democrats are catering to religious fundamentalists.

UPDATE: More on the Kerry speech here:

Teresa Heinz Kerry made it through her unprecedented speech at the Democratic National Convention without losing control of her famous temper, losing her place in the well-rehearsed speech, or otherwise providing dramatic entertainment. But she was just plain weird.

There’s much more.

MORE SUDAN NEWS from Rajan Rishyakaran.

MATT WELCH doesn’t like what he’s hearing:

Namely, that being a professional six-figure politician should be confused with noble “service,” while throwing them your hard-earned money amounts to a brave and selfless sacrifice. . . .

Not belonging to a political party, and believing fervently in Brian Doherty’s excellent maxim that time well spent is usually time away from politics, it is possible that I’m jaundiced. That said, the vision of a disabled woman handing over her last quarters to another moneybags politico who dreams of taking more of the stuff by force strikes me as, at minimum, nausea-inducing.

So, too, is the confusion of normal campaign politics with profound revolutionary bravery.

Read the whole thing. And don’t miss these important revelations from behind the scenes!

THIS IS NOT AS ABSURD AS THE TWINKIE DEFENSE, but I don’t think it’ll work:

Three Fort Carson soldiers charged in the drowning of an Iraqi man last January may argue today that their actions were caused by an anti-malaria drug. . . .

The drug is being investigated to determine whether it is linked to panic reactions, rage, aggressive behavior and other mental and physical problems, said Steve Robinson of the National Gulf War Research Center. Violent behavior by other soldiers has also been blamed on the drug.

“I am not saying this is why people push people off bridges, but there seems to be a pretty plausible connection to rage issues and taking the drug,” Robinson said.

Two of the soldiers, Sgt. 1st Class Tracy E. Perkins, 33, and Sgt. Reggie Martinez, 24, are charged with involuntary manslaughter. The third, Spc. Terry Bowman, 21, is charged with assault.

The three soldiers’ superior officer, 1st Lt. Jack Saville, is also charged with involuntary manslaughter.

This is the case involving Zeyad’s cousin, which has been written about here quite a bit (links to earlier posts in that one). Lariam has, in fact, been linked to psychiatric symptoms — some quite severe — but the likelihood that several soldiers would all suffer from those simultaneously seems quite low to me.

INTREPID INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER MICKEY KAUS is uncovering security holes at the Democratic Convention.

SOFT POWER: Not the solution, according to Claudia Rosett.

SEND IN THE PINKERTONS! Eduwonk finds a surprising case of union-busting.

THE DEMOCRATS HAD MICHAEL MOORE: Here’s a filmmaker that the Republicans might want to have at their convention.

9/11: A failure of academia?