Bribes and fracking

Everybody else is dishonest -- really

An ad in Discover magazine reminded us of commentary about a different subject in the Daily Pilot. The ad advised; “Imagine a Pain Free life.” It hawked sneakers designed to reduce back pain from foot impact. Buying shoes to find nirvana is much like finding avarice wherever you look. Mentally (and emotionally) competent adults do neither.

Criticised vote

A letter in the Pilot chastised Assemblyman Mansoor for voting against a bill to stop fracking. (Pilot letter) Fracking involves injecting water deep into the ground to make petroleum extraction more efficient. (fracking post) An EPA study of gas leakage in a specific area of Wyoming was the major (supposedly) factual criticism of fracking but it’s been redacted: it was untrue.

One would think that the letter would prompt intelligent discussion about the relevant studies of fracking, or the economic potential of harvesting the new oil fields it makes usable. But one would be wrong: most of the comments diverted to Mansoor’s vote being bought, one even offering that he taught Costa Mesa Councilmen how to take bribes. Others criticized the independence of Costa Mesa Councilmen and one opined that a Mesa Water executive would sell the city desalinized water.

Why the irrelevant diatribe?

We should consider why everyone (else) is on the take – to these few constant critics. Remember that projection involves attributing one’s own weaknesses to others. (Projection post) So either everybody they don't like is actually dishonest and manipulative, or else . . .

The OC Grand Jury would relish a good bribery case if the commenters’ remarks were based upon facts, or even defensible suspicion. But of course that’s not true – remember the yet-unincorporated CM4OE (Costa Mesans for Opposing Everything). (CM4OE post) They're still out producing heat and smoke – but no light.

One commenter linked a data source for support. Donations from some groups to Mansoor’s campaign totaled $20K. These groups were found to (probably) oppose the bill he voted against. (That’s in the context of over a quarter of a million dollars to fund his campaign.) The commenter just cherry picked his facts.

Irrelevant flailing

The critics brought in irrelevant (and erroneous) labeling (“…considers hunting for ‘sport’ recreational . . . the same kind of ‘environmentalist’ Mensinger is.”). It appears that the commenter wasn't capable of finding facts or developing logic, so she tried to appeal to emotion on an unrelated subject. And, she tossed in a jab at a City Councilman who wasn't mentioned in the letter. Her comments bring to mind the toy sold many years ago; a “whirling dervish” that flailed about randomly at everything.

So, Mansoor’s vote was criticized by folks who loudly claim that he, Costa Mesa Councilmen and their appointees accept bribes for their votes. And Mansoor and Mensinger were broad-brush attacked for their fact-based environmental stands which had nothing to do with the subject of the letter.

Evidence of thinking was limited

Only two commenters dealt with fact and reality. They addressed the economic and environmental advantages of fracking and geological science.

Rational discourse was limited, irrational flailing abundant in the comments.