Cui Bono

English: Graphic illustrating the percentages ...

English: Graphic illustrating the percentages of public opinions on the likelihood of some scientists falsifying global warming research. Based on Rasmussen polling of 1,000 American adults conducted July 29-30, 2011. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Cui bono is one of those phrases that indicates a skeptical man (or woman). You’d probably not be surprised that it is one of my favorite phrases. Why? because so very often people want us to do things that are (usually obviously) against our rational self-interest, and always, I wonder why. Do they have a higher good in mind, or do they merely seek some benefit at my (and your) expense? Nine times out of ten it has proved to be the latter.

There are people in the world who work selflessly for the common, or higher, good, mostly they are clergy. In my experience they are never politicians, who in my experience have no conception even of what the term means.

Global CoolingWarming, Climate Change, especially Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change is no exception.

Robert Tracinski over at The Federalist has something to say about it the other day, I think we should read it.

What It Would Take to Prove Global Warming

If generally rising temperatures, decreasing diurnal temperature differences, melting glacial and sea ice, smaller snow extent, stronger rainstorms, and warming oceans are not enough to persuade you that man-made climate [change] is occurring, what evidence would be?

This has since been picked up by Jonathan Adler at the Washington Post‘s token right-leaning blog, the Volokh Conspiracy. There’s no pressure: Bailey and Adler merely insinuate that you are “obscurantist”—that is, you hate new knowledge—if you don’t agree.

That, by the way—the smug insistence of global warming alarmists on presenting themselves as the embodiment of scientific knowledge as such—is one of the reasons I stopped taking them seriously. In fact, II have thought about what it would take to convince me global warming is real. And it’s pretty clear that Bailey has not thought about it.

He really hasn’t. He’s thought a lot about the various scientific claims made by those who insist global warming is a man-made catastrophe. But he has not thought about how those claims add up or how they would have to add up to be convincing. All Bailey’s piece amounts to is: here is a long list of factual claims that seem to support the global warming scare; how high do I have to pile up these claims before you are convinced?

There is no sense that the proof of global warming has to proceed according to some systematic method, requiring it to clear specific hurdles at specific stages. Which betrays an unscientific way of thinking.

When I refer to “global warming,” and when Bailey and Adler refer to it, that term is a stand-in, not just for the trivial claim that average global temperatures are rising, but for “catastrophic anthropogenic global warming”: i.e., global temperatures are rising, it’s our fault, and we’re all gonna die.

What It Would Take to Prove Global Warming.

Did you read his article? Good for you! He makes a good case, I think. What it takes to convince me is very similar. I would also say this, I’ll be more likely to believe that we can predict the climate, when we can reliably predict the weather a couple of weeks in advance. No, they aren’t the same but they are related, and why should I believe you can predict the far more complicated climate, if you can’t do the short-term characteristics of it, the weather?

To convince me you have a multi step project.

First you have to convince me that the climate wouldn’t change normally, because I’m one of those people who remember back around the year 1200 or so, there were farms in Greenland, that had to be abandoned later because the climate got too cold. the climate has always been changing, to suddenly believe that it’s caused by man (and almost only, man) strikes me as a severe case of hubris and little more.

Then you have to convince me that it’s catastrophic. It might be, I suppose, it might also be beneficial. How many more people could we feed if we could grow crops a couple of hundred miles further north (or south)? I don’t know, and I don’t think anyone else does either. I haven’t seen any scientific evidence (reputable or not) on the subject. What I have seen is nothing more than attempts to scare us, and that ain’t evidence.

That leaves you with the hardest one of all, you have to convince me that we (mankind) did it and that we can (and should) undo it. Most of us supported environmental legislation in the 1960s and 1970s because we could see that we were making a mess. When one gets sick from breathing and we’re watching rivers burn, well, that’s pretty clear, isn’t it? And it was clear that we were doing it, as well. And so it was time to fix it, and we did a pretty good job of it, overall.

None, not one, of the parameters of that are met in this amorphous mess of ‘Climate Change’. It’s called climate change, you’ll recall, because they can’t figure out if we’re making it warmer, or cooler, or to stay the same.

And then at the end of this article we get to the title of it. Cui Bono. Webster defines it this way:

1:  a principle that probable responsibility for an act or event lies with one having something to gain

It’s a pretty useful concept, not least here. Our air and water is actually pretty damn clean, often our rivers are actually cleaner downstream from cities than they are upstream anymore, the fish are back, and safe once again, to eat. The air is fit to breathe once again. What’s a poor environmentalist to do to raise the money that pays his (her) exorbitant salary? Why start another crusade, of course, one can’t expect these people to get productive jobs, all they know is to scare people into giving them money, for them to give to politicians, if any is left after the fund-raising expenses, of course.

So add to that all the advertising agencies involved and the professional fund-raisers on the front end whose living disappears when this is debunked.

Then we get to the politicians, the bought dispensers of our money, whose power is directly attributable to the amount of our money that they can manage to divert to their (so-called) friends. And who, in addition, have an insatiable desire to control us, the people.

Amongst the recipients are those very universities that have made such a good thing out of generating this crisis, and so cooked the research books to keep the golden eggs coming in.

Cui bono? Almost everybody except the poor shmuck out there that gets to pay for all this with his money, while paying more for everything he needs to make a living, if his job hasn’t been exported to China, which is more worried about making a living than this nonsense.

And then they have the sheer effrontery to claim that they have our best interest at heart while simultaneously telling us that a damned polar bear is more important than our children.

Like I said above, when these patronising fools can predict the weather two weeks out, maybe I’ll start to listen to their shrill screaming but until then…

Well mostly we can expect them to keep screaming, “Shut up and sit down you little people. What do you know?”

Unions battle for survival in key strongholds as court cases challenge forced dues

Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 1933. Lietuvių: Fra...

Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 1933. Lietuvių: Franklinas Delanas Ruzveltas (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

So Illinois has had about enough of the Public Employee Unions as well. It’s about time. Illinois has granted them pensions which cannot ever be funded, Illinois simply can’t raise the money. This is what always happens when a union ‘negotiates’ with a body that is not spending its own money. Even FDR, no friend of business, thought it a terrible idea. From Fox News.

[…] In the Midwest, where auto workers, Teamsters and other unions have had a stronghold for years, the right-to-work plan has been met with massive protests and multiple court battles — yet right-to-work laws have passed in Michigan, Wisconsin and Indiana.

Now that battle lines are being draw in Illinois, the Land of Lincoln state may become the last stand in America’s heartland for the unions. Without a policy of mandatory dues, unions anywhere stand to lose revenue and members.

“In half the other states in the U.S., government workers have a right to choose whether they will give money to a union. In Illinois, government workers don’t have the right to make that choice,” said Jacob Huebert, an attorney for the Liberty Justice Center, which is representing plaintiffs in the Illinois lawsuit. […]

Unions battle for survival in key strongholds as court cases challenge forced dues | Fox News.

Even the business of Big Labor and Big Business was pernicious to the working man (or woman). I watched as that combination killed American steel and nearly killed (and may yet) the American automotive industry.

And besides, it seems to me that if they were providing benefits on a par with their dues (or fees), their members would be glad to support them without the aid of government guns. But I think we all know that union leadership is much more worried about the union and their perks and overblown paychecks than they are the welfare of their members.

Why is localism important? | AECR

For us as Americans there is nothing new or novel about what is stated here. We are inclined to refer to it by its third name: Federalism. And as such it is one of the principles our founders used to help us maintain our freedom.

It’s interesting, I think, that one of the things the statist have done is to centralize power in Washington where they can mandate things and we (the people) have much less influence than their buddies in business, big labor, and yes, big law. That undoubtedly leads to corruption on a vast scale, here as it does in Europe.

So, while there is nothing new here, it does a very good job of stating the elementary reasons why local control of almost everything is such a good safeguard for the average citizen.

How subsidiarity inspires civic engagement – and thereby good democracy

Where Conservative governance is, in a word, subsidiarity; Socialist governance is centralisation. The AECR’s Reykjavik Declaration explains how subsidiarity “favours the exercise of power at the lowest practicable level – by the individual where possible, by local or national authorities in preference to supranational bodies.” […]

One only has to participate in a European election campaign to hear the number of pleas about “the pot holes down the lane”…

… and a true Conservative never patronises this! Here we find the Burkean heart of subsidiarity: the love and reverence of the local. It does not presume to impose principles from a centralised high tower. Socialism is so determined on redistribution between localities that it reductively quantifies them, not caring to truly look at them. When fairness is measured numerically, communities are soon reduced to numbers, before an alien hand from the centre reaches in and unintentionally desecrates.

Why is localism important? | AECR.

Bill Whittle on Mandatory 16 year Old Voting

Well, it just keeps getting more insane doesn’t it? This time we get two really stupid ideas packaged together, no extra charge from our ‘betters’.

I don’t know about you but, I wasn’t a particularly responsible voter at eighteen. Neither were my friends, we had other things on our minds, mostly girls. :)

But at sixteen the only thing we cared about was getting our driver’s license, and girls and beer, of course :)

They were pretty good days but neither we nor anybody else thought we ought to be required to decide how to run country.

The Ties That Bind, and Some We Should Refuse

She’s right, of course but, Why?
Well to start with because there is government money involved the government(s) will become the gatekeeper, with still another layer of gatekeepers. How do you get through the gate? You please the gatekeeper. Now mind it’s open source software, and I’m an open source guy myself, and so we can all use it. Want to know you’ll use it best? Yep the Anglosphere.

Why? because we don’t wait for much of anything. The old saying is that in Europe one can do anything if it is permitted, but in the Anglosphere we can do anything not prohibited. See the difference? We don’t wait for the government, or much of anything else. We know better..

Her linked article made references to “Uber. WhatsApp. Twitter. Google. Snapchat. Instagram. Facebook.” and there are others as well, nor should we forget many other things, in technology and history as well. They all have something in common. Somebody, usually an individual came up with the idea, found the resources to do it and became very rich, if he did it well.

What they never did was run to the government for help, if they had, somebody would have beaten them.

I don’t know if you’ve noticed but when companies run to the government for help, and many of those above have, it’s always means that they have made their fortune, and now want the government to protect them from those coming after. In other words they have become lazy, and complacent, and unable to make it anymore on their own. We have seen this in every industry since the industrial revolution and it’s always the same, and it always hurts the individual citizen.

The Anglosphere is better than the rest because we do less of this nonsense than anybody else does.

Government doesn’t innovate, government only stifles innovation.

That hurts the citizens in two ways; 1) What products never reached the market because of the government, and 2) they do this stuff with the money they have taken by force from the citizens, themselves.

So we get to pay for them to deprive us of the things we (might) want.
My answer to her was this:

RFRA, Religious Liberty, Republicans, and Kristallnacht

Kristallnacht

Kristallnacht

I suppose I should write a bit about the furore in Indiana and Arkansas about their state Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The whole mass is distasteful, grotesque, reminiscent of fascism and several other -ism’s, not to mention despicable. But rather than tell you all about it, I’m simply going to give you a few excerpts of what others are saying.

David Harsanyi writing in The Federalist reminds us that Republicans have undergone a spinectomy.

Let’s Face It, When It Comes To Religious Liberty, Republicans Are Cowards. (But Voters Aren’t).

As always it’s up to us, The People.

Kevin D. Williamson at National Review reminds us that there is he War on the Private Mind, In Indiana, in Arkansas, and in the boardroom.

Read more at: War on the Private Mind.

The Anchoress compares the mess in Indiana (correctly, I think) to Kristallnacht. She thinks saner voices may prevail. I pray she’s right.

Deacon Greg Kandra adds some detail to that in Great moments in journalism: TV station fabricates a controversy, destroys local business. Business as usual for the4 media these days, sadly. Not quite what the Founders had in mind but, what you often get in the neighborhood of one of the great pseudo-Catholic institutions Notre Dame University.

So the news is pretty distasteful this Maundy Thursday, and Holy Week, in fact but, The Newman Lectures remind us that it’s nothing new. From Keble:

“DARK FROWNED THE FUTURE E’EN ON HIM, THE LOVING AND BELOVÈD”

  “O Holy mountain of my God,
How do thy towers in ruin lie,
How art thou riven and strewn abroad,
Under the rude and wasteful sky!”
’Twas thus upon his fasting-day
The “Man of Loves” was fain to pray,
His lattice open toward his darling west,
Mourning the ruined home he still must love the best.

   Oh! for a love like Daniel’s now,
To wing to Heaven but one strong prayer
For God’s new Israel, sunk as low,
Yet flourishing to sight as fair,
As Sion in her height of pride,
With queens for handmaids at her side,
With kings her nursing-fathers, thronèd high,
And compassed with the world’s too tempting blazonry.

   ’Tis true, nor winter stays thy growth,
Nor torrid summer’s sickly smile;
The flashing billows of the south
Break not upon so lone an isle,
But thou, rich vine, art grafted there,
The fruit of death or life to bear,
Yielding a surer witness every day,
To thine Almighty Author and His steadfast sway.

   Oh! grief to think, that grapes of gall
Should cluster round thine healthiest shoot!
God’s herald prove a heartless thrall,
Who, if he dared, would fain be mute!
E’en such is this bad world we see,
Which self-condemned in owning Thee,
Yet dares not open farewell of Thee take,
For very pride, and her high-boasted Reason’s sake.

   What do we then? if far and wide
Men kneel to Christ, the pure and meek,
Yet rage with passion, swell with pride,
Have we not still our faith to seek?
Nay—but in steadfast humbleness
Kneel on to Him, who loves to bless
The prayer that waits for him; and trembling strive
To keep the lingering flame in thine own breast alive.

   Dark frowned the future e’en on him,
The loving and belovèd Seer,
What time he saw, through shadows dim,
The boundary of th’ eternal year;
He only of the sons of men
Named to be heir of glory then.
Else had it bruised too sore his tender heart
To see God’s ransomed world in wrath and flame depart

   Then look no more: or closer watch
Thy course in Earth’s bewildering ways,
For every glimpse thine eye can catch
Of what shall be in those dread days:
So when th’ Archangel’s word is spoken,
And Death’s deep trance for ever broken,
In mercy thou mayst feel the heavenly hand,
And in thy lot unharmed before thy Saviour stand.

 

%d bloggers like this: