Post-debate Whatever

Here is the single best thing to come out of last night's debate:


Awesome.

Most of the rest of it was babbling about "Joe the Plumber," plus the usual lies and obfuscations and pretty words that mean very little. The most exciting moment was when I really pissed off my friend's cat, who tried to maul me. He couldn't though, because he was declawed, and that must have been pretty frustrating. I feel bad about the whole thing. Sorry I was a dick to you, cat!

The results of the debate are pretty typical. If you already planned to vote for Obama, you still plan to do so. Ditto for McCain. If you're undecided at this point in the game you're probably so clueless you'll either miss the election entirely because you got confused about what month it is or you'll get lost trying to find your polling place and somehow drive into a lake. So who really cares what you think?

There are two things I want to mention, though. They both keep coming up, and they're both really aggravating.

This is a picture of an overhead projector:

This is a picture of the Adler Planetarium's Zeiss Mark VI projector, which John McCain has repeatedly referred to as an "overhead projector":


Yeah, pretty big difference there.

Here's a page where you can donate to help them renovate the Zeiss projector. Feel free to send them some money, by the way. Planetaria are awesome.

Anyway, know why they need a donation page? Because while money for the planetarium was in a budget proposed by Obama, it never passed. The Adler Planetarium got no money to update their 40 year old projector.

Yet McCain repeatedly brings it up. It's bad enough that he thinks planetaria are "foolishness" (that is actually the word he used). But in his whining about someone daring to try to fund science education, he can't even be bothered to tell the truth, which is that the funding never passed. Argh!

It's part of a weird pattern of Republicans hating astronomy, for reasons I can't fathom.

McCain hates planetaria, Nathan Bech hates telescopes, Sarah Palin presumably hates the concept of heliocentrism. I guess the astonomers have it a little easier than the biologists, at least. Hell, nearly 70% of Republicans reject evolution.

I wonder why America is falling behind the rest of the world in science.

The second thing that irritates me into calcifying a black pearl of fury is this quote from McCain about ACORN. This is basically the new Republican talking point/excuse for why McCain is going to lose.

[ACORN] is now on the verge of maybe perpetrating one of the greatest frauds in voter history ... maybe destroying the fabric of democracy.

Oh my god what total bullshit that is! Forget Diebold and the largescale disenfranchisement of potentially millions of people, what's important is that a few people might have registered "Mickey Mouse" to vote. So now when Mickey Mouse shows up to vote he will destroy democracy!

Here's a good explanation of ACORN and "voter fraud". In a nutshell, yes there have been cases of false registrations. This was fraud against ACORN, not voter fraud. There's no evidence anyone ever voted under the false registrations, someone was just trying to make some extra cash by registering people who don't exist.

In almost all cases, it was ACORN itself which drew attention to the fraudulent registrations. Their only crime (and this is only a crime in the eyes of Republicans) is trying to register poor people to vote. That's not a reliable Republican demographic!

Making this all the more annoying is that I can pinpoint when I first heard a Republican shill badmouthing ACORN. It was on NPR, in a piece about voter suppression by the Michigan GOP.

The shill downplayed the Republican attempts at voter suppression while also claiming that ACORN commits voter fraud for the Democrats. It was probably on September 11th that I heard it, judging from the date on this NPR blog entry.

Apparently it took the Republicans about two weeks to get their talking points coordinated, because it wasn't until around the 27th that attacking ACORN really started to take off.



The accusations are obvious bullshit to anyone who actually bothers to look at the facts. They're just a smokescreen to try to divert attention from the well-sourced evidence of Republican voter suppression.

Sadly, debunking lies like this just tends to make people believe them more strongly. Cognitive dissonance is a terrible thing.

Anyway, Obama won the debate. Yay!


[Update 6:38 PM] Want to know more about what the hell is up with that picture up top? Go here and be enlightened!

Know your candidates!

As I mentioned yesterday, it can be tricky to get information on candidates. Particularly conservatives candidates, who tend to keep their actual agendas low-key so they don't scare away too many sane voters.

Allow me to provide some resources for the curious voter.

First, you should probably know who the hell is on your ballot. You can easily get that information at Imagine Election.

Just type in your address and it'll tell you who's on the ballot where you live, complete with links to a bit of information about all the candidates. Handy!

Along similar lines, there's also this thing, which is pretty fancy looking but I found annoying.

Still, maybe you want more information. Or information about specific issues. Being a science-y guy myself, I was curious about the various candidates' attitudes towards science.

In this case, you'd want to check out Scientists & Engineers for America's site, where they have a bunch of information about the science policies of everyone seeking federal office.

Actually, not everyone. Most of the Republicans running for Congress have no information available. But don't worry, I sent Nathan Bech an email suggesting he respond to their questions so I'm sure his answers will be up soon!

Along a similar line, if you're curious about which presidential candidate renowned scientists support, the AVoteForScience youtube channel has some endorsements. They just started out, but here's the 2008 Nobel Prize winner in chemistry endorsing Obama. My bet is you'll see a lot of that.

But there's more to find out!

It's handy to get information from the right-wingers too. They're far more likely to have information on the Republican candidates (these candidates may want to keep their conservative views quiet to the public at large, but they still need to motivate their base).

The hugely unpleasant Massachusetts Family Institute (who I also mentioned yesterday) have a whole bunch of voter guides. Nothing that's Fitchburg-specific, but here's one for Leominster.

The group "Catholic Citizenship" also has a page up for the Leominster race here. Leominster's candidates both really suck!

You could also use the perpetually ridiculous American Patriarchy Family Association's voter guide thing for that rightwing "values" information. Though its design is pretty annoying.

Back on the liberal side of things, if you're all about abortion rights, you can find NARAL's Pro-Choice voter's guide here.

The strictly nonpartisan League of Women Voters also has a bunch of information available online. You don't even have to be female to use it!

No doubt there are a million more voter's guides out there. Some useful, most totally useless. But at least here you have a start. Ignorance will be no excuse if you vote for some asshole!


PS Today is the last day to register to vote before the November elections. Do it!
PPS No liveblogging tonight's debate. I'm going to watch it with people and will do my complaining/weeping out loud.

The twisted mind of Nathan Bech

Alas.

You'd think that after my nice civil discussions with a member of his staff, I'd lay off Nathan Bech for awhile. He did tell me I'm Bech's harshest critic, after all. Maybe I should pause and let others catch up to my level of harshness. Or maybe the guy just deserves a break.

Truth be told, I probably would have given him a break, because I'm not super-interested in giving him a ton of press, and I'm not too concerned about him winning the election. Olver should retain his seat easily.

But if there's one thing I can't resist, it's a batshit-insane press release. And Bech has served one up to me on a golden platter.

To be honest, I don't even know where to start with this piece of bullshit. Let's just quote and fisk, shall we?

Olver Home Heating Plan Fails 75% of Needy Bech says "Drilling will provide relief for all."

21st July 2008

Nathan Bech (R - West Springfield) expressed bewilderment about incumbent John Olver's (D- Amherst) continued unwillingness to loosen regulations for new refineries or to allow drilling for oil in ANWR and offshore drilling in the United States. "Olver knows seniors and poor people will freeze this winter if we do nothing. He knows his plan won't work and still he pursues the same failing polices," said Bech

Here's the first problem (aside from the fact they forgot a period at the end of that paragraph): Bech is talking about "this winter."

Does he seriously think that ANWR and offshore drilling will keep anybody from freezing this winter? Because that's just insane. Try 2030, if you're lucky.

But I've been over all that before, so let's not worry about it now.

Moving on..

In a speech before the House of Representatives on Wednesday July 16th Olver explained, "A whole new crisis looms as families face a price approaching $5 per gallon for heating oil for their homes. That's twice last winter's price. Last winter in Massachusetts and New England alone, 350,000 low-income families used the LIHEAP program to get by, yet only one in four of the families eligible by income use [sic] the program. Many of those already eligible families will be in desperate need of help this winter, and many more middle-income families' budgets will be severely stressed by the doubled price of home heating oil."

See where I put that "[sic]"? There's an intentional misrepresentation a typo there.

If you compare Bech's press release to Olver's, you'll see that Olver didn't say that only one in four eligible families "use" the program, he said they "used" the program. There's a subtle but important difference, which Bech will now further twist to his own bizarre interpretation.

Oddly, you'll also find Olver's "middle class" replaced by Bech's "middle-income." But it's the use/used distinction that Bech exploits.

Witness the insanity!

Bech argued that Olver's own words prove three quarters of the people refuse government handouts for heating oil. "The people of central and western Massachusetts do not want to be dependant [sic] on welfare to heat their homes. We are self sufficient and don't want to take handouts. We simply want government to get out of the way and let increased supply lower costs. If we allow new refineries to be built and if we allow off-shore drilling energy prices will go down," said Bech.

Holy fuck that's stupid.

Seriously, Nathan? You seriously think that Olver's words "prove three quarters of the people refuse government handouts for heating oil"? Are you high? Do you have even the faintest idea what you're talking about?

Now, a sane person hearing that only a quarter of eligible recipients get help from LIHEAP might imagine many reasons for why that's the case.

For instance, they might assume that most people who are eligible for assistance are unaware of it, so they never even think to apply for help. Or they might assume that the application process is so grueling that a lot of eligible people don't make it through. Or they might assume that there are other programs that people use in its place.

They absolutely do not assume that poor people are refusing "government handouts" that would help keep them from freezing to death!

The only people who would assume that are either rich assholes that are totally disconnected from reality, or deranged militia members living in shacks and preparing for "the coming race war." Either way, they share a detachment from reality.

Want to know why only a quarter of people eligible for LIHEAP get help? Maybe this is related...

The Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) is not an entitlement program, meaning that you are not guaranteed help because you meet certain criteria. Congress provides a specific amount of money each year for LIHEAP.

When the LIHEAP funds are gone, LIHEAP grantees can no longer provide federal help until Congress provides funds for the next Federal Fiscal Year that begins on October 1st of each year. Therefore, it is possible (at the time one applies) that a state will have exhausted its available federal LIHEAP grant monies, and thus be unable to serve additional households even if those households are eligible to receive help.

Yeah, and how's that funding going?

Oh, not so well:

FY 2009 Proposed Funding
The President’s proposal for FY 2009 LIHEAP funding is a cut of 22 percent, reducing the block grant from $1.98 billion to $1.7 billion and the emergency contingency fund from $590.3 million to $300 million. The President has proposed zero funding for the Community Services Block Grant and the Weatherization Assistance Program.

Starting to see a trend here?

The whole point of Olver's speech to Congress was to try to get more funding for LIHEAP. That's why he was talking about people who are eligible but couldn't use it. Only a quarter of those eligible get help, not because they refuse it, but because there's no fucking money to give them!

It takes a truly twisted mind to turn an attempt to get proper funding for heating assistance for poor people into a claim that people reject that very assistance out of some twisted desire to conform to Republican ideals. It's impressive, in the same way that 2girls1cup is impressive. And both can cause nausea.

Must we go on with this?

Yeah, we must...

Olver blamed Republicans for the crisis saying, "Congress must end rampant speculation in crude oil futures, yet our Republican colleagues in both branches have consistently opposed such legislation."

Hey, that's true! Maybe things are looking up!

Bech responded, "It is Economics 101, when action to increase supply is taken, the price of futures goes down and speculators leave the market place. When the executive offshore drilling ban was lifted last week the price of crude went down $9 a barrel with in [sic] hours.

Hey, he's doing pretty well. Bech and Olver agree that speculation is a problem, they just differ in the best way to solve it. I'm inclined to agree with Olver and disagree with Bech on this matter, but reasonable people can differ.

Maybe this is a sign of an upcoming improvement in the Bech press releases! Oh, but wait... that quote didn't close... there's one more sentence to go...

Olver doesn't seem to have a problem with speculators in the pharmaceutical industry; after all he has thousands of dollars in Pfizer stock."

FUCK!

I thought we were talking about energy costs and LIHEAP and people freezing this winter, and Bech comes out with a slam that Olver owns stock in Pfizer? What the fuck is that even supposed to mean? How is it relevant to anything anyone is talking about? Is speculation some sort of problem when it comes to pharmaceutical prices? How does this have anything to do with anything???

I give up. This is way past just honesty problems. This is dementia.

No more mystery

Remember that post I made a few days ago? The one immediately beneath this one? If not, I recommend you read it now or nothing I say in this post is going to make much sense. Or maybe it will. Either way, I'm bored with it now and am just posting this so I can move on to something more interesting.

Anyway, some of the mysteries in that last post are now not so mysterious. I've had some polite discourse with the formerly mysterious Brian S. Murphy, who is Nathan Bech's Volunteer Coordinator. Pleasantries were exchanged, tales were told, etc.

Contrary to what I had speculated about, my annoying commenter "BSM" was not Mr. Murphy (who is quite civil). My bad!

On the other hand, BSM is a supporter of Nathan Bech (albeit informally), swiped most of the comments directly from a policy paper written by Brian S. Murphy, used BSM as a name to somehow "credit" Mr. Murphy, and contacted Mr. Murphy to brag about the commenting, at which point a chiding was presumably administered.

So while it wasn't a direct connection, there was at least some connection there. Mr. Murphy had basically been identity-thefted! Though most identity thieves don't brag about it to the victim. This is a shame, because it would make catching them a lot easier. Still... Not cool, BSM!

Of course that was only one element of the whole weirdness. There was also the matter of the Phoenix blog. And that was the real Brian S. Murphy commenting!

I chided him in my post for not disclosing his affiliation, and he conceded the point in email:

I will make sure that we include our affiliation when we comment on a blog. It's a fair criticism of something that wasn't intentional. I don't think it gets to our honesty at all. You made a good point and we'll modify what we do going forward.

So that's good, and gives me little to complain about here.

There was also discussion about who's behind Bech's Wikipedia page. I'm not going to go into details about that one, but will give you the gist.

The story given to me by Mr. Murphy indicates that while it indeed was someone with a political agenda, they weren't officially with any campaign, and indeed support neither Bech nor Olver. They also sound like sort of a dumbass.

There was more to the emails than just that, of course. I got a lot of campaigny talk about what Nathan Bech is about and what he believes and so forth. Which is all well and good, and I will perhaps talk more about it at another time. Some of it's good, some of it's just plain baffling. I also might do a Q&A thingy with Bech at some point. We'll see.

Brian Murphy was quite pleasant in representing Bech. His emails were well-written, and not super make-fun-of-able. He also came off as pretty sincere. The kind of guy you can have a civil conversation with, even if you disagree.

So, some mysteries are cleared up, some speculation is put to rest, and after my pleasant email exchanges with Mr. Murphy I must be feeling good about Nathan Bech, right? Maybe I'll lay off him for a bit? Only time will tell!

yeah, I'm writing another post about him now...

The hilarious ineptitude of Nathan Bech's spin machine

About a month ago, I wrote a post about Nathan Bech. He's the Republican looking to do battle with John Olver in the fall. He has honesty issues.

About a week after my post, I started getting comments on it from an apologist for Mr. Bech by the pseudonym of BSM.

Generally when a newly created account starts parroting some candidate's platform a week after the post is made, I start to wonder if perhaps the commenter is somehow affiliated with the campaign and just found me through a Google Alert. So, after a bit of back-and-forth, I ended a followup comment with this:

ps Are you part of Bech's internet team? Like the guy who made his Wikipedia page? Just curious.

Perhaps I should explain that Wikipedia part. That was a case of somebody registering an account, making Bech's page (and nothing else), and then disappearing. Another possible indicator of a campaign operative, natch.

Anyway, my question seemed to largely (though not totally) shut up Mr. BSM, and all I got out of him was this:

BSM said...

Unicow -- the man, the myth, the moonbat economist. He can't understand supply and demand but he sure can sling an insult.

Code Pink is calling.

Lovely. I asked again:

[Y]ou didn't answer my ps. Are you part of Bech's team or not? I'm seriously curious, because it's obvious he has one and it looks like you just registered this account to respond to this post. And if my asking about it makes you disappear then I'm just going to assume you are.

...and got the witty retort:

BSM said...

Did you create this blog just to post your thoughts?

I think you are part of the Unicow internet team! All one of you.

Oh snap!

That was the last I heard from the enigmatic "BSM." He never exactly denied being employed by Bech, nor did he admit to it. Alas, we may never know the truth!

That's the backstory. Now we get to the fun stuff.

Bech's campaign recently sent out an email mentioning this Boston Phoenix article in which the writer awarded them the "Crappy Spin of the Day Award" for a totally absurd reinterpretation of something Olver said (as I've mentioned, Bech has honesty problems).

This alone is pretty hilarious, because they actually linked to the article talking about their dishonesty, though they did try to spin it again in the email:


Oh my. That's an even worse spin than the one they got the award for! They gave everyone an easy way to go see just how dishonest Bech is and then backed it up with a totally lame "it's good we got this becuz libruls r bad!" claim. And at the same time, it comes off as desperate for attention! Well done, sirs!

Also, in what way is his "opponent" fighting back? It was an article (technically a blog post) in the Phoenix. Olver had nothing to do with it. Even Reilly wasn't "fighting back," he was making fun of how pathetic Bech's press release was. Is Bech just going to redefine words to suit his purposes? It looks that way.

Thanks to Mr. Bech's email, I went and read the Phoenix article. Thanks Nathan! I wouldn't have noticed that otherwise.

Nor would I have noticed the comments on it. Particularly the two by a "Brian S. Murphy."

Hmm... why does that seem so familiar? The apologetics for Bech, the sense of intellectual superiority that can only come from having studied economics at the prestigious "Western New England College," the ineffecutual sarcasm, the tendency to ignore the issue at hand? The initials?

Could it be my friend BSM? [Update: Probably not. See bottom of post.]

Honestly, there's no way to know for sure. It could be Buffy St. Marie. Or the Bloated Spaghetti Monster. It's a mystery!

But here's something we do know. Nathan Bech's FEC filings are online. They're pretty hilarious in themselves, since they show that of $70,410.95 in itemized receipts for campaign donations, $58,860.95 (that's 83.5%) came from Bech making loans to himself. This is clearly a grassroots campaign!

But who cares about itemized receipts? Far more interesting is the list of disbursements.

Who's that we see halfway down the page next to a payment to "Staff"?

Surprise! It's someone by the name of Brian Murphy!



Of course, it's certainly possible that these are different Brian Murphys, right? And BSM could be anyone. But I don't think it's being overly presumptuous to assume that all these Brian Murphys with a great love for the otherwise-not-very-popular Nathan Bech are most likely the same person. [Update: Or maybe it was. Well, two out of three isn't too bad!]

It's perfectly fine if Mr. Murphy wants to comment on blogs and defend his overlord. That's his right.

However, by not disclosing that he works for Nathan Bech he's being inherently dishonest in his postings. There's a reason that respected journalists (and even pain-in-the-ass bloggers) talk about "full disclosure." It appears another commenter on the Phoenix article is probably also affiliated with Bech (though I didn't spot him in the FEC filings), but he at least links to the Bech website in his name. That's semi-disclosure, anyway.

See, if you don't disclose these things up front then people just assume you're just a normal guy with an opinion, not an interested party. Which means you won't get the kind of scrutiny you'd get if people knew you're actually part of the campaign staff. It's basically a more subtle form of sockpuppetry.

And the ducking of a direct question (assuming BSM and Brian S. Murphy are the same person) only makes matters worse. It was an easy opportunity to tell the truth, and the only response was an attempt to change the subject by lamely attacking me. One can only assume that if they're the same person, then BSM certainly didn't want people to know that he's on Bech's staff.

You know Bech's honesty problems? They apparently extend to his staff as well.

Try not to be too shocked.

--------

Update 7/20/08:

This morning I received an interesting email from Mr. Murphy. He informs me that he has not posted here, which I will take him at his word on. He also says he didn't make the Wikipedia page, which I hadn't meant to imply was him anyway, but there you have it. Brian S. Murphy is apparently not BSM.

What makes that interesting is that he claims that he does know who "BSM" is and who made the Wikipedia page (different people). We're going to discuss this when I can get in touch with him, so prepare for intrigue!

Also, I'm apparently Bech's "harshest critic, bar none." Which is sort of neat. I think that just means I'm unusually harsh, but the recognition is nice!

There was more to the email, which maybe I'll talk about later. I will say that Mr. Murphy came across reasonably well in his email and not as the sort of person who'd say "Code Pink is calling." (Though it's hard to know from one email.)

Finally, while the BSM/Brian Murphy connection may not exist, I do stand by the bulk of this post regarding the importance of full disclosure (it just applies to the Phoenix blog instead of mine now). I also still think that the Bech campaign continues to put out incredibly dishonest press releases, and that the spin machine is missing a few cogs. But maybe Mr. Murphy will wow me with something later. Stay tuned!

DiNatale's Gas Price Craziness

After my little post on Nathan Bech being a big fat liar a commenter (and local blogger) pointed me to this editorial by city councilor Marcus DiNatale.

Apparently the aforementioned commenter was annoyed with its dumbassery and was looking for someone to debunk it in a calm and rational manner. Which is of course what I'm known for. Polite political discourse.

So let's see what the dumbass had to say...

The basic argument was expressed in the headline Federal restrictions fueling gas price boom. Pretty simple concept. Here's a quote:

For years voters have heard from federal politicians that the United States needs to relinquish its dependence on foreign oil. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, Canada supplies America with the most oil per day at 1.7 million barrels, followed by Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Nigeria and Venezuela. It is also a fact that the United States will spend approximately $400 billion in crude oil imports for 2008, and this number will continue to rise if Congress continues its failure to act on behalf of the American people. There are three solutions to alleviate this pain at the pump: Allow American oil companies to drill, build refineries, and encourage nuclear power development.

I did go over two of these "solutions" in the Bech post, but let me reiterate the points here.

Drilling is not only potentially environmentally disastrous, but there's little indication that it would make much difference. We're talking about a 1.8 cent decrease in price per gallon in 2025. Not exactly earth shattering stuff.

As for refineries, there's little incentive to build new ones since their profit margins are traditionally tiny and they're a huge pain in the ass. Anyway, there's unlikely to be any benefit there for a solid decade. Plus it probably makes more sense to continue what the industry has already been doing for the last few decades and decreasing the number of small refineries while expanding and improving the efficiency of the big ones. This is why our capacity for refining has increased while the actual number of refineries has decreased since the last one was built in 1976.

I didn't address nuclear power before, because Bech didn't talk about it. So let's get that out of the way too. Nuclear plants are ridiculously expensive to build (for good reason), but the actual power output is largely on the same cost level with coal plants, both of which are considerably cheaper fuels than oil and natural gas.

It's actually a little odd that DiNatale mentions nuclear power, since that's really only a factor in the production of electricity and has little impact on gas prices (to Bech's credit, that's probably why he didn't mention it). The US doesn't use a significant amount of oil in electricity production, so even if all those plants swapped to nuclear we're not talking about any significant change in gasoline price, which was supposedly the topic at hand. (There is a debate to be had about nuclear power, but it doesn't involve gas prices.)

Bascially, all of DiNatale's "solutions" for high gas prices will in reality have little or nothing to do with the actual price of gas.

But that's far from the end of DiNatale's editorial. Indeed, that was just the opening. He goes on to bash "Liberal politicians" and "fear mongering... environmental special-interest groups" in what I can only assume is an attempt to ingratiate himself to local Republicans.

DiNatale appears especially eager to drill in ANWR, and wants to make us all feel good about it!

One specific area of contention for drilling is the Artic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. According to anwr.org, 75 percent of Alaskans favor exploration and production, and only 8 percent of ANWR would be considered for exploration (2,000 acres of over 1.5 million acres of the Coastal Plain).

Let's take that apart, shall we?

First of all, anwr.org is a propaganda site created by a group called "Arctic Power." Arctic Power was formed by oil companies. Specifically, BP, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and ChevronTexaco. All but ExxonMobil have dropped out recently. I guess Exxon just figured nobody would notice the incredibly huge fucking conflict of interest.

The real site for ANWR is here. Not as pretty a website, but then again it's not funded by oil company money.

Now, you may think that maybe Marcus DiNatale was just pulled in by the slick propaganda put out by an oil conglomerate and are willing to cut him some slack. As we'll see later, it really doesn't matter, because even if he knew oil companies were behind the site he seems to have more faith in their truthiness than any sane human being should have.

Second, it really doesn't matter one bit if 75% of Alaskans support drilling in ANWR. Even if the number is accurate, it's a fallacious appeal to popularity, and doesn't mean that what they support is right. By way of example, if 75% of Alaskans supported clubbing baby seals, that doesn't mean we should all support clubbing baby seals.

As for the 2,000 acres figure; that doesn't sound so bad in such a large area, does it? It sure sounded good in Prudhoe Bay, where they claimed only 2,100 acres would be affected back in 1972. Too bad that's now expanded to a total drilling footprint of 12,000 acres with drill sites spreading over 640,000 acres. You have to be pretty gullible to think this time we'd really keep things down to just 2,000 acres.

DiNatale goes on to try to convince us even the animals want us to drill in ANWR:

Environmentalist groups say that wildlife would be in danger as a result of oil exploration in ANWR. However, the small amount of oil and gas development going on currently in ANWR coexists successfully with wildlife. The Central Artic Caribou Herd has grown from 3,000 animals to its current level of 32,000. Brown bear, fox and bird populations have also not been impacted negatively.

Yay, wildlife loves oil exploration!

Indeed, the Central Arctic Caribou Herd has grown (though the figures I've seen placed it at 5,000 before, not 3,000). Too bad we're dealing with the Porcupine Herd. I wonder what more informed people say...

Although the same animals, the two herds are very different. The Porcupine herd migrates over a much larger range, an arduous journey that takes its toll on the herd. Scientists also believe the Central Artic herd, a much smaller herd, has access to several acceptable calving grounds. The Porcupine herd has fewer alternatives and the herd has suffered declines in years when deep snow cover made it difficult to reach its preferred calving grounds on Alaska's coastal plain.

Some biologists suggest a major reason why the Central Arctic herd has flourished is because as much as three-quarters of the area where it calves has virtually no oil activity.

"Yes, the herd has grown, but only 25 percent has been affected," said Griffith, an associate research professor at the University of Alaska at Fairbanks. "The fact that it has grown does not mean there is no effect. It means that the effect wasn't sufficient to keep it from growing at all."

Ground observations of the Central Arctic herd in the nearby Kuparuk oil fields have found that over time the caribou increasingly avoid areas of intense activity - especially during the sensitive calving period -- and shift into areas with fewer roads and pipelines.

Dangit, maybe wildlife doesn't appreciate oil drilling as much as we're supposed to believe!

Okay, so far DiNatale has presented what's basically John McCain's plan. Which is to say, one that will have negligible effects in the short-term and largely unknown (but not especially compelling) effects in the long-term.

It's not just McCain he parrots, though. Remember when I mentioned how he seems awfully eager to accept the oil companies' propaganda about all of this? It wasn't just presumption. He actually goes on to quote the president of Shell Oil!

Shell Oil President and CEO John Hofmeister stated, "In the United States, access to our own oil and gas resources has been limited for the last 30 years, prohibiting companies such as Shell from exploring and developing resources for the benefit of the American people. It is not a free market. According to the Department of the Interior, 62 percent of all on-shore federal lands are off-limits to oil and gas developments, with restrictions applying to 92 percent of all federal lands. The Argonne National Laboratory did a report in 2004 that identified 40 specific federal policy areas that halt, limit, delay, or restrict natural gas projects. The problem of access can be solved in this country by the same government that has prohibited it. Congress could have chosen to lift some or all of the current restrictions on exploration and production of oil and gas. Congress could provide national policy to reverse the persistent decline of domestically secure natural resource development. There is simply no way to keep up - let alone get ahead of demand - except by producing more oil and building more refining capacity."

Holy crud that's a long quote. He must trust Shell Oil just as much as he trusts ExxonMobil!

So, Mr. Oil mentions a report by the Argonne National Laboratory about natural gas projects. Umm... wait a second. Does your car run on natural gas? Mine doesn't. Are we still talking about gasoline prices? No? Okay, then let's not get into that.

But let's deal with the basic gist, summed up by Mr. DiNatale in his final sentence.

There is your answer to high gas prices. It is Congress restricting free market exploration, not "Big Oil."

Huh. That sentence seriously ended the editorial, and came immediately after that big quote from "Big Oil" itself. Trusting guy, that Marcus DiNatale.

Too bad for him that "Big Oil" has a tendency to not be totally honest.

We're going to ignore all the natural gas stuff, since we're dealing with gasoline prices. So the basic argument being made by "Big Oil"/DiNatale is that Congress is standing in the way by keeping us from drilling and making more refineries.

Well, Congress has so far been successful in preventing ANWR drilling, but as we've already discussed, that's pretty much unrelated to gasoline prices. As for refineries, the reason there haven't been any built since 1976 has less to do with Congress than it does with lack of investors in a tumultuous and low-profit-margin industry.

What are we left with?

Well, personally I'm left with the opinion that Marcus DiNatale is for some reason trying to appeal to the conservative dumbasses who think we can get cheap gasoline prices next week if we just rape the environment. I'm also left with the opinion that he puts way too much trust in what oil companies tell him. Oh, and that his ideas about how to lower gas prices are idiotic.

But there's a lot of that going around.

Nathan Bech is going to save us a penny

You may have seen this article in the Sentinel the other day. It's about Nathan Bech, a Republican challenging John Olver for his seat in the House of Representatives.

It's an interesting article mostly because after a whole article that consisted of nothing but parroting favored Republican talking points, it ends with:

"I think people of Western and Central Mass. deserve better," he said. "I'm an independent thinker. A good idea's a good idea."

[...]

"I want to get this seat back into the hands of someone who will diligently and honestly represent the people and not just someone who pushes the party line," Bech said. "I can think for myself."

Okaaaay...

It was of course entirely possible that Bech does have some views that don't match up perfectly with the views of the Republican establishment, and the S&E article just didn't bother to mention them, so I checked out Bech's website.

Man, the guy really harps on being a vet. I will give him credit for that though, most Republicans who support the war haven't ever been in the armed service. He's a Republican who supports the war enough to have fought in it. It doesn't really separate him from the party leadership though, aside from making him seem less hypocritical.

So I kept looking for whatever I could find that might separate him out from other Republicans. Here's what I found:

1. He doesn't support a "National ID card," just something that's exactly like it.
2. He's opposed to torture (which he does not define).

Those are sort of at odds with the Republican party line, right?

No? Oh well, I tried.

But that's not the most interesting part of his website. The most interesting part of his site is this crazy gas thing where he shows how all his fancy plans would have us paying just $2.08 at the pump today compared to how Olver's plans would have us paying $4.01. Oh my god, the man must be good at telling people what they want to hear a genius!

Actually, he just seems to have taken these "ideas" from the Bush administration and stuck numbers with them.

Anyway, we have math to play with! Let's look at all his fancy-pants cuts!

His first item is:
Bring onshore oil online (ANWR, Shale) with a savings of $0.70 - $1.60.

Hmm, that doesn't seem likely. I mean, this study (pdf) on ANWR drilling suggests a mean savings of 75 cents per barrel, and that's not until 2025. There are 42 gallons in a barrel of oil, so that means a 1.8 cent decrease per gallon. Yay?

Now, that's wholesale of course. You'll probably see less retail. Maybe a cent, if you're lucky. So it must be the oil shale that account for somewhere between 69 cents and $1.59 in Bech's calculations.

Wow, it takes a brave (or stupid) man to propose something with so many nasty environmental side effects while also playing up his supposed environmentalism.

I don't know where Bech gets his figures, but even this RAND study (pdf) suggests it would take at least 12 years to begin production and probably would only save a few dollars a gallon. Plus it would be environmentally disastrous to do, of course.

Well crap, Mr. Bech. Your first figure just didn't work out.

How about the next one?
Bring deepwater oil online (OCS) with a savings of $0.90-$2.50. Sweet!

This is the "offshore drilling" stuff so popular with Bush and McCain and all their toadies these days. The one that would take 10 years before any oil would start flowing and then wouldn't actually have any impact on prices anyway. Well, maybe after 2030. But probably not.

This isn't working so well for Mr. Bech. All his savings are disappearing!

So, what's left?

blah blah blah "gas tax holiday" for 18 cents.

Man, do I even need to mention this one? Like the way every economist in the country has said it won't work? No, I didn't think so. Moving on.

His last sizable cut is also an old favorite of the Republicans who he's oh-so-different from.

Bring new refineries online for $0.15-$0.45.

Sure, that sounds swell. But nobody wants to build them because their profit-margins are razor-thin. The first new one since 1976 has been in the works for a decade or so, and construction has yet to even begin. They do claim to be expecting full operation by 2012, but I got that off a FAQ that's 4 years old.

Damn. Another one down.

I won't bother addressing the supposed 5 cent decrease from halting shipments to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, since both Olver and Bech support it.

I'd like to know where Bech gets his figures (aside from the 18 cent gas holiday one, I already know that). They're either ridiculously optimistic or totally made up. Decide for yourself. Either way, his little gas price chart is nothing more than a big fat lie. Way to represent for the Replubicans, Bech!

So yeah, vote for Olver.