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.

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!

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.