Who benefits from canards?

Cui bono: who benefits?

Here’s a comment after an article about police recruiting:

“. . . the lack of concern Righeimer and Mensignger (sic) have for the safety of the citizens . . . They only care about development and lining their friends(sic) pockets with the tax dollars of the Costa Mesa tax payers “(Pilot comment)

Comment about parking lot lighting:

“. . . unless there is an Estancia football game where Steve can make some money on parking.” 

How does the Pro Tem get money from free, City-owned parking? Why project dishonesty?

Another commenter – who was once a Parks Commissioner and should understand the Fairview Park plan and the difficulty of changing anything in that Park -- said:

“Obviously, someone wants to change Fairview Park into an Events Center, maybe the kind of commercial sports stadium they tried to make in TeWinkle Park. Otherwise they wouldn't need the parking, the lights and changes to the Master Plan.”

This is deliberately misleading; why?

Innuendos galore

A blogger who has written about the City for several years and expresses a lot of pride in his “sources of insider information” knows well that paving Fairview’s vernal pools is not remotely possible. But last year he warned (he weaseled by using “rumor”):

“. . . the November 16th meeting of the Costa Mesa Parks and Recreation Commission . . . request to pave over part of the vernal pools at Fairview Park . . .

If true, this has the stench of Steve Mensinger all over it. “

And, he commented about a recent letter in the Pilot criticizing Mayor Righeimer’s statistics (the Mayor noted that 310 of 400+ City employees – 72% -- enjoyed employment packages of $100K or more; the letter writer cried out that current labor negotiations are with the union that covers only 200 employees):

“I'm not sure if (the Mayor’s) just statistically challenged or just a devious, self-serving politician willing to say anything to sway the voters, no matter how inaccurate it might be.” (Misdirection by comment)

The blogger is well aware that Mayor Righeimer is a successful businessman who understands statistics.

Cui bono analysis suggests the commenters don’t benefit from their misguided comments; the nonsensical babble just makes them look foolish. Who benefits?

Clues:

1. Their diatribe follows rules Saul Alinsky taught to agitators in the 60’s. (Alinsky rules) It also follows the negotiation “Playbook” of a Police-union law firm. (Playbook)

Alinsky RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating.

RULE 12: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” And the “Playbook” advises: “Focus on an Individual and keep the pressure up (until they agree to support you) . . . then move on to the next victim.” Further,

Getting your members to apply (elsewhere) . . . always sends a strong signal. Keep this for last, as some of your members may ultimately leave anyway.

2. Negotiation with an employees’ union is starting. Negotiations with the police association begin next year.

Answered the who, now why?

“Who benefits?” seems answered. Why resort to canards (false or groundless rumors or beliefs)?