Josh Marshall muffs first chance to explain Peak Oil

Early Thursday, the TPM editor wondered aloud how much the Bush/Cheney saber-rattling on Iran was driving the rapid ramp-up in oil prices.

I told him it, even if combined with Turkey’s saber-rattling on the Kurds, probably was no more than $10/bbl, and even that much effect was due to world supply tightness. I then noted I had written my most recent newspaper column about Peak Oil, T. Boone Pickens’ prediction of $100/bbl oil and related issues.

I implored Josh to take the opportunity to familiarize his readers who aren’t up to date with it on Peak Oil, including through referencing a website such as The Oil Drum. I bluntly juxtaposed Peak Oil to global warming by saying the U.S. could grind to a halt before the world burns to a crisp, to link two metaphors.

Well, Josh took a whack at it this evening, but kind of whiffed. I cite this sentence as proof:

Over time spiraling prices will lead to more investment and eventually more supply.

No, no, no, Josh.

King Hubbert factored in rising prices driving more marginal production techniques in more marginal production areas as part of his Peak Oil prediction methodology.

And, the statement above, to me, just doesn’t get the basic bell curve fact of Peak Oil, either.

I e-mailed Josh again, re the quoted statement of his: No. We will then, globally, be on the downslope of the bell curve and past the peak. Many analysts not named Daniel Yergin believe we are at that point RIGHT NOW.

I hope Josh, in the posts he promises for Friday, does a better job. We need major bloggers to discuss this more in hopes of getting politicians to honestly discuss it AT ALL.

There's more: "Josh Marshall muffs first chance to explain Peak Oil" >>

Giuliani, Dumber Than A Rock On Foreign Policy?

Lest you conclude from my Campaign Video of the Day post below that Rudy Giuliani is really a closet liberal you might want to watch Josh Marshall's take on Giuliani's foreign policy advisers. Basically they are all neocons who are too radical for Bush/Cheney--you have to be some kind of crazy to be too radical for Bush/Cheney. Watch the video and you find out why. As Marshall points out, at least as far as foreign policy is concerned, Rudy Giuliani truly is dumber than a rock.

There's more: "Giuliani, Dumber Than A Rock On Foreign Policy?" >>

Last Night's Democratic Debate--Is Bill Kristol One Toke Over the Line?

The Democrats had their most interesting debate of the year last night. The New York Times has an excellent critique. If you didn't watch the debate you might want to read the Times article.

It never hurts to find out what the opposition is thinking. This morning Josh Marshall had a one line link to Bill Kristol's Daily Standard comments. Here is Josh's entire post. I hope repeating it verbatim is fair use because I don't know how to summarize Josh.

Kristol tokes up and analyzes the Dem debate.

I disagree.

More on the other side. UPDATE -- TPM has produced a highlight's video. It's embedded after the flip.

I think Bill is a couple or three tokes over the line on where the country is right now, but he has a good take on front runner Hillary's weakness.

She's out of sync with her party. That means if she stumbles once, and the magic cloak of inevitability is torn, she could be finished. Obama and Edwards will pour everything they have into winning Iowa. The Iowa Democrats are dovish. What Obama and Edwards will say, over and over--when they go up with serious paid advertising--is that Hillary voted with Bush in October 2002 on Iraq (and has never apologized) and that on September 26, 2007, Hillary voted for the Lieberman-Kyl amendment that (allegedly) lays the predicate for military action against Iran. Hillary could well lose in Iowa. Then Hillary could well lose the nomination.

You can read the entire Daily Standard comment here.

There's more: "Last Night's Democratic Debate--Is Bill Kristol One Toke Over the Line?" >>

Josh Marshall Doesn't Fact Check? Who Checked That "Fact?"

I am posting this because a lot of folks who follow Political Animal might not have seen the latest development in the back story to Kevin Drum's post entitled "Facts On The Ground." If you haven't you are either going to be shocked or you are going to be laughing your head off.

Let me recap. This morning the Los Angeles Times published the Op-Ed of a man named Michael Skube. Mr. Skube claims to be a journalism school professor. That fact is not really substantiated. And as will become apparent, one has to wonder if somebody shouldn't check.

The Op-Ed entitled Blogs: All the noise that fits examined the possibility that because of the blogs we are suffering from entirely too much information.

Bloggers now are everywhere among us, and no one asks if we don't need more full-throated advocacy on the Internet. The blogosphere is the loudest corner of the Internet, noisy with disputation, manifesto-like postings and an unbecoming hatred of enemies real and imagined.

And to think most bloggers are doing all this on the side. "No man but a blockhead," the stubbornly sensible Samuel Johnson said, "ever wrote but for money." Yet here are people, whole brigades of them, happy to write for free. And not just write. Many of the most active bloggers -- Andrew Sullivan, Matthew Yglesias, Joshua Micah Marshall and the contributors to the Huffington Post -- are insistent partisans in political debate. Some reject the label "journalist," associating it with what they contemptuously call MSM (mainstream media); just as many, if not more, consider themselves a new kind of "citizen journalist" dedicated to broader democratization.

He complains loudly that bloggers are claiming all of the "rights" of journalists with few of the obligations.

Ok, I can see why some print journalism school professor might insist that bloggers aspire to traditional journalistic standards. We should be expected to check our facts. We should be expected to be careful not to jump to conclusions. We should try to learn something about the topic at hand before we write. If we want to be treated like journalists, even citizen journalists, we need to act like journalists.

Kevin pointed out that

these four examples, the first three are all professional writers and the fourth is a venture-funded site with a paid staff. If you're going to extol "thorough fact-checking and verification" over the blogosphere's "potpourri of opinion," you really ought to fact-check your assertions first. Otherwise you're just making things too easy for us.

A nice day was spent over at Political Animal examining all the various aspects of the post. It generated one of the better comment threads in months. A good time was had by all.

While we spent an afternoon and evening exchanging opinions, Josh Marshall was engaged in journalism. Guess what he was told by Mr. Skube in an email.

"I didn't put your name into the piece and haven't spent any time on your site. So to that extent I'm happy to give you benefit of the doubt ..."

Josh "followed up noting my surprise that he didn't seem to remember what he'd written in his own opinion column on the very day it appeared and that in any case it cut against his credibility somewhat that he wrote about sites he admits he'd never read."

Skube replied

"I said I did not refer to you in the original. Your name was inserted late by an editor who perhaps thought I needed to cite more examples ... "

Think about what Skube, who fancies himself the very model of a modern journalism professor, just said. It is bad enough that he allowed an editor to insert unsubstantiated "facts" in a piece critical of bloggers for not fact checking, but he admits that he doesn't know much about Josh Marshall. How can anybody claiming to be a journalism professor in 2007 not know about the pioneering work Josh Marshall is doing at TPM? Marshall and his crew are on the cutting edge of journalism in the post-television age.

For all you journalism professors out there who haven't heard of Josh Marshall, go over to his "blog" and take a look. You will find a newspaper sans newsprint. I will grant you that Marshall writes from a political point of view, but I would submit that historically many, if not most, newspapers were written from a particular political point of view. They still are. They are all held to same journalistic standards, standards Marshall and his team of professional journalists clearly try to meet.

So there you have it, Skube is a fact free opinionated ignoramus who, without checking his facts, wrote an op-ed calling his betters fact free opinionated ignoramuses who don't check their facts.

The alternative story is that he allowed an equally ignorant editor at the LA Times to insert "facts" into his piece without doing the most cursory examination of the inserted "facts."

What a waste of ink. I hope his dean calls him in for a chat tomorrow. Maybe he and the dean could spend some time reading the PA comments thread. They might learn something.

There's more: "Josh Marshall Doesn't Fact Check? Who Checked That "Fact?"" >>

Better Late Than Never

Josh Marshall, Founder of the Talking Points Memo Empire, and one of the most eloquent progressive skeptics on impeachment, appears to finally be coming around.

"Without going into all the specifics, I think we are now moving into a situation where the White House, on various fronts, is openly ignoring the constitution, acting as though not just the law but the constitution itself, which is the fundamental law from which all the statutes gain their force and legitimacy, doesn't apply to them.

If that is allowed to continue, the defiance will congeal into precedent. And the whole structure of our system of government will be permanently changed.

Whether because of prudence and pragmatism or mere intellectual inertia, I still have the same opinion on the big question: impeachment. But I think we're moving on to dangerous ground right now, more so than some of us realize. And I'm less sure now under these circumstances that operating by rules of 'normal politics' is justifiable or acquits us of our duty to our country."

I've been a loyal TPM fan since 2001, when it was a one-man, bare-bones blog, just a few months old. TPM Cafe, Election Central, Horse's Mouth, Muckraker, TPMTv and the staff that keep TPM at the top of the blogging game were not even gleams in Josh's eye.

Yeah, he's always been a little too fond of the DLC line for my taste, but I was thrilled by the reporter's sensibility he brought to his posts - a sensibility now grown into the major-story-breaking hard news of TPMMuckraker.

And for all his DLC apologia, liberals and progressives owe Josh Marshall a permanent debt of gratitude for putting a stop, virtually single-handedly, to The Usurper's 2005 attempt to destroy Social Security.

I thought Josh was wrong when he expressed doubts about the wisdom of impeaching Bush and Cheney, but I respected his logic.

I respect him even more for his ability to consider changing his mind based on new evidence and circumstances.

Nevertheless, I think he's missing one of the strongest arguments in favor of impeachment: Nixon.

Josh is 38, which means he was in kindergarten during Watergate. I was only in high school, but I remember the extreme shock felt by people of all political persuasions when the full extent of Nixon's crimes was laid bare.

I remember the heart-swelling pride in the strength of our political system when Congressional Republicans and Democrats banded together to expose those crimes and demand the president be held accountable.

I remember my father - a third-generation Republican - and my mother, a sixth-generation Democrat - both emphasizing to me that the true lesson of Watergate was that the U.S. Constitution was stronger than any politican, stronger than any president, stronger than any crime perpetrated against it.

And I remember how all that shock, all that pride, all that faith in the Constitution was swept away by Gerald Ford's pardon.

Nixon skated. The man shat on the Constitution, came within a whisker of establishing a police state that put the East German Stasi to shame, and he skated.

The precedent for The Usurper's treason was established.

Reagan and Bush I used it to escape punishment for Iran-Contra (Presidents are above the law.) And the republican freakazoids of the '90s turned it inside-out to impeach Clinton for telling a lie told by thousands of married people every single day (Impeachment isn't a serious Constitutional mechanism; it's a political tool.)

If Nixon had been impeached, or indicted and convicted for his crimes after his resignation, it would have been much harder for Reagan and Bush I to resist Congressional investigation through secrecy and perjury. It would have been much harder for '90s republicans to justify using the Constitutional majesty of impeachment for a fib about sex.

And it would have been damn-near impossible for George W. Bush and Richard Cheney to continue to trample the Constitution for more than five years after a pre-Nixon Congress would have kicked their asses into the dustbin of history.

If Congress doesn't impeach Bush and Cheney - or given the time constraints, indict and convict them after they leave office - it won't matter who's elected president in 2008. It won't matter if Democrats take the Senate and House with 80-percent majorities. It won't matter if the republican party is shut out of every national, state and local election for the next three generations.

If Bush and Cheney skate, an even more dangerous precedent than Nixon's will be set in stone:

The president is King; Congress is a debating club; the judiciary is a joke; the Constitution is as dead as Ozymandias, and The American Experiment is a historical fluke that failed.

There's more: "Better Late Than Never" >>

What Tony Snow Says Dick Lugar Thinks Compared To What Dick Lugar Says Dick Lugar Thinks

I just found this over at TPM. I am posting it for two reasons. First, the substance. It is startling to compare what Tony says Sen. Dick Lugar thinks with what Dick Lugar says he thinks. Tony Snow proves once again that he is Tony Snow.

Second, this video provides an example of what can be done with a little inexpensive video capture hardware and software. Josh Marshall and his team are to be commended. Here they are showing all of us the way forward. Of course, Marshall's approach to blogging is often ground breaking.



Doc Larry, what does it take to accomplish what Josh Marshall has done in producing this video? I really like his toys.

There's more: "What Tony Snow Says Dick Lugar Thinks Compared To What Dick Lugar Says Dick Lugar Thinks" >>

The Bush Administration Doesn't Think Blue Girl, Josh Marshall, and Kevin Drum Are Journalists

The House Judiciary Committee held a hearing today examining the Free Flow of Information Act Of 2007. You can view the video webcast and copies of the witnesses prepared testimony here.

The bill is intended to create a Federal shield allowing journalists to protect their sources. The proposed legislation includes several exceptions applying equally to all journalists. To invoke any of the exceptions the government would be required to petition a Federal court.

While the Justice Department has never favored a shield law, the administration's most strongly held objections to this bill are aimed at its definition of "journalism." As proposed

The term "journalism" means the gathering, preparing, collecting, photographing, recording, writing, editing, reporting, or publishing of news or information that concerns local, national, or international events or other matters of public interest for dissemination to the public.

Obviously, the proposed definition is broad enough to include the work of bloggers. If the bill is enacted it will treat the reporting of Judith Miller and Blue Girl just alike. Josh Marshall and the New York Times will benefit equally. The posts or editorials Kevin Drum and William Safire will be entitled to exactly the same protections.

According to c\net the mere idea that bloggers might be entitled to protection as journalists has reduced the administration to a quivering state of apoplexy.

Rachel Brand, assistant attorney general in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Policy, testified that "The definition is just so broad that it really includes anyone who wants to post something to the Web."

The administration's argument didn't fall on deaf ears. Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) said, "I'd say anyone who didn't want to face legal action would immediately try to put up a blog and try to get journalistic protection."

The best defense of both the bill and bloggers came from William Safire. The long time New York Times columnist likes the definition's focus on the activity of journalism rather than the journalist's employer or paycheck. He testified that

Whether you're a blogger or whether you're The New York Times or CBS or The Wall Street Journal, if what you are doing is aimed at informing the public, then you're a journalist, whether you get paid for it or not.

The bill's sponsors have indicated that they want to pass the bill this session. We will follow it's progress, and especially whether the administration is able to deny bloggers engaged in journalism the bill's protection. Anybody know Brad Sherman. If so send him an email and tell him to join the 21st Century.

There's more: "The Bush Administration Doesn't Think Blue Girl, Josh Marshall, and Kevin Drum Are Journalists" >>

Steve Clemons Discovers That War Is A Bitch When You Actually Know Somebody Who Dies.

First Lt. Andrew J. Bacevich, 27, of Walpole, Mass., died May 13 in Balad, Iraq, of wounds suffered when an improvised explosive device detonated near his unit during combat patrol operations in Salah Ad Din Province, Iraq. Given the ripping of garments and the gnashing of teeth going on over at tpmcafe and the Washington Note the last two days you would think Lt. Bacevich's death was unique. Steve Clemons is holding a virtual wake. Dozens of well meaning posters have expressed their condolences. Josh Marshall has blogged Lt. Bacevich's death. Why? Well, Lt. Bacevich's father is Boston University Professor Andrew J. Bacevich, a well known author and friend of all who oppose the Iraq war. The death is personal for Clemons because he actually knows Professor Bacevich.

Clemons writes:

I had the pleasure of meeting Andy Bacevich at the home of former Congressman Dave McCurdy this last holiday season. We spoke for a bit about the Iraq war as well as the absence of American strategy and dearth of strategists in government today. I had no idea his son was serving until now.

But this young man did serve his nation -- but his death is so incredibly tragic, like the others -- but his even more because his well-respected father has been working hard to end this horrible, self-damaging crusade. It's incredibly sad.

Mr. Marshall, Mr. Clemons and all you grieving wonks over at TPMCafe and the Washington Note, welcome to the Iraq war. Now you know that it is not just a political game. It is ugly. Good people die. This time it was someone you knew. The son of a friend. A very good man who will be deeply,deeply missed by all who knew and loved him.

Now, please, tell me why you haven't held similar on-line wakes for the other 3380 American children who have died in the Iraq War? Are they any less deserving of your grief?

Why haven't you grieved personally for each of the tens of thousands of Iraqis who have died? Did they volunteer to die in their homes?

I guess they are just numbers, abstract names, pictures on the television. I guess to you they aren't real because you don't know some member of their family.

Mr. Marshall, Mr. Clemons meet the reality of war. It's a bitch.

Oh, in your grief you claim Lt. Bacevich's death is more tragic than the deaths of any of the others. You are wrong. Sorry if I sound harsh, but tragic as Lt. Bacevich's death is, it is no more tragic than any of the thousands of deaths in the optional war called Operation Iraqi Freedom. You want to do something to honor Lt. Bacevich's memory, do more to stop the war.

Maybe if we could introduce President Bush and the others living in the administration bubble to the reality of the war, this optional fight would end.

There's more: "Steve Clemons Discovers That War Is A Bitch When You Actually Know Somebody Who Dies." >>

Why I Am A Lousy Blogger

I like to start my day with a cruise around the net. Usually I post something I find here. This morning I found something right away and instead of cruising, I lingered for an hour. Bill Moyers Journal has just posted Friday's show on the web. If like mine, your local public television show is doing a fundraising auction or if your local public television channel doesn't carry Moyers, spend an hour this morning watching his show. He has interviews with Josh Marshall and Jon Stewart, and a story about the late David Halberstam. Trust me, the hour you spend watching Moyers will be better spent than watching Tim Russert's dog and pony show.

Sorry for not finding the outrage or bit of humor this morning. Blue Girl needs to pay me more if she doesn't want me distracted by high quality television.

There's more: "Why I Am A Lousy Blogger" >>

Why Is the Purge Scandal Important

All yesterday afternoon and last evening I was wondering how to address the new talking point first announced by Rep. Chris Cannon of Utah and quickly picked up by one of the Republican talking heads on Lou Dobbs Weekend. According to Cannon, US Attorneys are political appointees, the President can fire political appointees. He did. Big deal.

I have been thinking about how to respond because we are dealing with an issue so fundamental to American democracy we are almost dealing with first principles. I want to get it right. Of course, it is a big deal if he fired them for improper or illegal reasons. Wouldn't converting the justice department into a purely partisan tool designed to help one party or another win elections be an improper or maybe even an illegal reason? Wouldn't such a subversion shake the very core of our nation. Anyway that is what has been tumbling around in my head.

This morning I opened Talking Points Memo and read Josh Marshall's comment. It is a little long and rambling for Josh, indicating he really hasn't thought it through completely, but obviously he is trying to address the question with which I have been struggling.

What is shocking about this administration is its utter lack of respect for American institutions. More later. I have to go to work. Read Josh, he is getting to the heart of the issue.

You might also try reading Kevin Drumm's morning piece. It has a link to Robert Novak. I am not sure Kevin is right to suggest that this scandal is all about Republican incompetence, although incompetence plays a role.

There's more: "Why Is the Purge Scandal Important" >>

My First Time

The first political blog I ever read was talkingpointsmemo.com by Josh Marshall. It was after the push to go to war in Iraq, a move I deeply disagreed with, that I found TPM. I remember emailing Josh about helping me understand what a "progressive" was and how that was different from a Democrat or a Liberal. At my age, I was much too naive.

As political blogs go, I have always believed that Josh has maintained his political bias without letting it get in the way of reporting. His empire now (TPMCafe.com, TPMMucracker.com and the original) tends not to comment on the news so much as to report about news in a cutting edge way. Even his original talkingpointsmemo.com is less about commenting than it is about reporting. He even gives the devil his due, more on occassion than his peers.

That's why I think this is a monumental step toward the legitimacy of blogging as a real news medium. Perhaps FDL started that change with Scooter Libby, but no one has driven a story like TPM and the US Attorney scandal.

Every time a job opening is posted at TPM, I think that I would fill it the best. I have the passion, the drive and the time, but, alas, not the connections or the place (I live near Orlando - the pot belly of the Bush/Martinez dynamic) do not fit.

That does not prevent me, nor should it you, from dreaming that we could make an impact the way that Josh has on this one particular event. At the very least, he has precluded a presidency from being embalmed as a kingdom. That is the VERY.LEAST. not such a small thing.

There's more: "My First Time" >>