THE BBC’S PRESENTATION OF ISRAEL is deemed dishonest: “[W]e find that the BBC is in persistent breach of its duties of fairness, accuracy and impartiality when it covers the Middle East.”

Can’t say I’m shocked to hear this.

TOM MAGUIRE is eagerly anticipating Christie Vilsack’s speech, and wonders if she’ll expand on her earlier comments regarding improper diction among some groups of Americans.

THE ECONOBLOGOSPHERE is well represented at this week’s Carnival of the Capitalists, which features business- and economics-related blog posts from all over.

I’LL BE ON BRIAN LEHRER’S SHOW on WNYC in just a few minutes. You can listen live here.

AS REGULAR READERS WILL KNOW, I’m no fan of Orrin Hatch. His latest draconian copyright bill doesn’t make me like him any more:

The Senate Judiciary Committee will consider a bill Thursday that would hold technology companies liable for any product they make that encourages people to steal copyright materials.

Critics say the bill would effectively outlaw peer-to-peer networks and prohibit the development of new technologies, including devices like the iPod. The Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act (S. 2560) was introduced last month by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), head of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The legislation would hold a company liable that “intentionally induces” a person to infringe copyright.

It’s a disgrace.

UPDATE: Reader Jim Breed emails: “Is Hatch out after Xerox? Sounds like it applies to photocopiers, as well as IPOD.”

Personally, I’m mystified as to why Republicans want to help the entertainment industry.

MARK STEYN writes on Sandy Berger and war revisionism. Max Cleland is mentioned, too:

Take, for example, Max Cleland, Vietnam veteran and former Georgia senator. Last week, speaking in his role as Kerry campaign mascot, he said Bush went to war with Iraq because “he basically concluded his daddy was a failed president” and he “wanted to be Mr. Macho Man” so he “flat-out lied.”

Blistering stuff, huh? Would this be the same Max Cleland who voted to authorize war with Iraq in the U.S. Senate? Perhaps, as he’s so insightful about the president’s psychology, he could enlighten us as to his own reasons for wanting war with Iraq?

If I were planning the Republican Convention, I’d make sure that some of the nationally televised primetime was devoted to a video featuring clips of what Democrats said about the war then, and now.

CONVENTION BLOG-COVERAGE ROUNDUP: Here’s my MSNBC post on convention blogging. Here’s a link-rich item by John Fund. Here’s a big roundup post by Daniel Drezner, too. And don’t miss the MSNBC convention roundup page.

The Command Post election page has more, including a tip that the National Journal’s Early Bird is free (with registration) during the conventions.

I’ll be on WNYC’s Brian Lehrer show at about 11:20 am (ET) today, too.

PUTTING PROTESTERS IN A CAMP: Here’s what one convention blogger reports from Boston:

Rather than letting people protest near The Fleet Center, they are putting them in a camp….at least, that’s what it looks like. I walked through it this morning. The protester’s cage is about a block away, a maze of overhead netting, chain link fencing and razor wire will be the protesting area.

It’s more crushing of dissent!

UPDATE: More crushing of dissent here:

Organisers at the Democratic Party convention in United States have removed Aljazeera’s logotype banner from its skybox without assigning reasons. . . .

“We found that the banner disappeared for some reason,” Aljazeera’s Washington bureau chief Hafiz al-Mirazi said.

I blame John Ashcroft! Er, or did anyone see Sandy Berger hanging around, and think to check his pants?

“INSTAFUEHRER?” Ve haff vays of making you blog.

VIRGINIA POSTREL: “When I was in New York a few weeks ago, a friend in the magazine business told me he thinks the ferocious Bush hating that he sees in New York is a way of calming the haters’ fears of terrorism.”

UPDATE: Alex Bensky emails:

I happen to be a fan of Ms. Postrel–and of you, for that matter–but is her comment about hatred of Bush being a way of displacing fear of terrorism supposed to be some sort of keen insight? It’s been obvious and this is not the first issue on which this sort of defense mechanism has been used.

During the Cold War, whenever I heard someone talk about nuclear weapons causing fear and distorting our society, I would point out that the United Kingdom had a sizable arsenal and effective delivery systems for its nuclear weaponry. The UK could, if it wished, cause incalculable damage to the United States and there wasn’t a soul in the U.S. whose sleep was troubled by British atomic bombs. The problem wasn’t nuclear weapons; it was who had them.

I’m upset and scared too by the fact of an implacably hostile and maniacal Islamist movement that cannot be mollified, is not susceptible to negotiation, and since I am an American and a Jew has targeted me twice over.

I sure wish I could decide that the problem was George Bush and not millions of savage Islamists. I sure wish Lucy Lawless was about to ring my doorbell and ask if she could come up and get out of these wet things.

The point may be obvious, but it’s not often publicly stated. However — except for substituting Salma Hayek for Lucy Lawless — I agree with the rest.

ARTHUR CHRENKOFF has posted another long and link-rich roundup of good news from Afghanistan.

DARFUR UPDATE: Rajan Rishyakaran has his Sudan genocide update posted. Not a lot of good news there, I’m afraid.

UPDATE: More here.