Andrew Sullivan, who carelessly endorsed Joe Klein’s lashing out at “Jewish neocons,” is very easy on himself in response to being called out by Max Boot:

I can’t speak for Joe, but I obviously feel somewhat shafted by some neocon arguments before the war - arguments that I took in good faith and now suspect were made in bad.

What kind of lame excuse is that for jumping on Klein’s slime wagon? You feel “somewhat shafted” and so you lash out at the Jews once a “good Jew” like Klein has signaled to you that it’s okay to do so?

What a turd.

Russ Feingold—one of the most progressive members of Congress—on Heller:

I am very pleased the Supreme Court finally recognized that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms. This is an important decision for millions of law-abiding gun owners. Public safety must be ensured without depriving our citizens of their constitutional rights.

The HuffPo notes:

Perhaps the most telling aspect of the early reaction to the Supreme Court decision is that it illustrates how non-partisan gun control debates have become.

At the beginning of this month, I started noting some of the positive news stories about improvements in Iraq and the apparent decline of al Qaeda. A lot has been written in this vein since then.

Most interesting of all is this op-ed from Daniel Kimmage in today’s New York Times, in which we find out that AQ, seemingly so far ahead of the technology (and media-saviness) game in 2001, is now eating the dust of Web 2.0:

The genius of Al Qaeda was to combine real-world mayhem with virtual marketing. The group’s guerrilla media network supports a family of brands, from Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (in Algeria and Morocco) to the Islamic State of Iraq, through a daily stream of online media products that would make any corporation jealous.

A recent report I wrote for Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty details this flow. In July 2007, for example, Al Qaeda released more than 450 statements, books, articles, magazines, audio recordings, short videos of attacks and longer films. These products reach the world through a network of quasi-official online production and distribution entities, like Al Sahab, which releases statements by Osama bin Laden.

But the Qaeda media nexus, as advanced as it is, is old hat. If Web 1.0 was about creating the snazziest official Web resources and Web 2.0 is about letting users run wild with self-created content and interactivity, Al Qaeda and its affiliates are stuck in 1.0.

In 2008, Kimmage points out, you’re at a sizable disadvantage if you’re that far behind the technology curve [e.a.]:

[A] more interactive, empowered online community, particularly in the Arab-Islamic world, may prove to be Al Qaeda’s Achilles’ heel. Anonymity and accessibility, the hallmarks of Web 1.0, provided an ideal platform for Al Qaeda’s radical demagoguery. Social networking, the emerging hallmark of Web 2.0, can unite a fragmented silent majority and help it to find its voice in the face of thuggish opponents, whether they are repressive rulers or extremist Islamic movements.

Of course, the authoritarian regimes of the Middle East are threatened by the notion that online communities could become powerful enough to challenge their authority, so it’s not exactly clear skies ahead for these dissident voices:

[T]he authoritarian governments of the Middle East are doing their best to hobble Web 2.0. By blocking the Internet, they are leaving the field open to Al Qaeda and its recruiters. The American military’s statistics and jihadists’ own online postings show that among the most common countries of origin for foreign fighters in Iraq are Egypt, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Yemen. It’s no coincidence that Reporters Without Borders lists Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Syria as “Internet enemies,” and Libya and Yemen as countries where the Web is “under surveillance.”

Still [e.a.]:

There is a simple lesson here: unfettered access to a free Internet is not merely a goal to which we should aspire on principle, but also a very practical means of countering Al Qaeda. As users increasingly make themselves heard, the ensuing chaos will not be to everyone’s liking, but it may shake the online edifice of Al Qaeda’s totalitarian ideology.

I’m always saying that there’s nothing more important than freedom of expression. This is what I mean. It’s why we must stand behind people struggling for the freedom to express their thoughts, and thus challenge the status quo that oppresses them.

Channel-surfing last night, I happened upon Luke Russert, son of the recently deceased Tim Russert, discussing politics with Larry King, who was holding a “Rock the Vote” special. It was pretty astonishing to see his poise in the wake of the sudden death of his father, but I was soon taken with young Russert’s interesting (and politic) take on politics. He’s non-partisan—indeed, he’s an independent [e.a.]:

KING: Luke, why are you an independent?

RUSSERT: Well, I’m an independent because I believe it’s important to vote for politicians and not a party. I like to see what a politician’s going to do and what he says he’s going to do in Washington. Being here in the District of Columbia, we don’t vote for a governor or senator or congressional representatives. You pretty much vote for mayors, city council members and the president of the United States. And I just really like to wait on my vote until the last second to see what each politician has done, what they say they’re going to do, and what the media scrutiny reveals of each politician.

I think it’s very, very important to see how politician holds up to the questions the media asks. One of the things my dad always liked to say is, how are you going to make tough decisions as a commander in chief if you can’t answer tough questions from media. That’s why I’m an independent. I also think it’s kind of ridiculous how people in the United States, if they’re a member of the party, they don’t even listen to the other side of the issue; oh, the Democrats are voting this way, I agree with that; Republicans vote this way, I agree with that. I might be sounding a little Lou Dobbs, but that’s why I’m an independent in that sense.

Compare and contrast with the unappetizing spectacle I wrote about here. What a refreshing change.