SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: bart13 who wrote (105686)4/20/2014 2:34:47 PM
From: Maurice Winn  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 217652
 
Stop thinking inside the box. Cliched thinking isn't the answer. Cui bono is some weird language from long ago. It's not just cliched thinking, it's archaic. <Cui bono / k w i? ' b o? n o? / "to whose benefit?", literally "with benefit to whom?" is a Latin phrase that persists. [1]The phrase is a double dative construction. It is also rendered as cui prodest.

It is a Latin adage that is used either to suggest a hidden motive or to indicate that the party responsible for something may not be who it appears at first to be. [2]

Commonly the phrase is used to suggest that the person or people guilty of committing a crime may be found among those who have something to gain, chiefly with an eye toward financial gain. The party that benefits may not always be obvious or may have successfully diverted attention to a scapegoat, for example.

The Roman orator and statesman Marcus Tullius Cicero, in his speech Pro Roscio Amerino, [3] section 84, attributed the expression cui bono to the Roman consul and censor Lucius Cassius Longinus Ravilla:

L. Cassius ille quem populus Romanus verissimum et sapientissimum iudicem putabat identidem in causis quaerere solebat 'cui bono' fuisset.The famous Lucius Cassius, whom the Roman people used to regard as a very honest and wise judge, was in the habit of asking, time and again, 'To whose benefit?'

>

"Who benefits?" is a reasonable question, but people often think something will benefit them even though it will be counterproductive for them.

So it's not enough to wonder who will benefit. One needs to wonder who would wonder whether they would benefit. There are odd motivations too, such as "I'm paid this big salary to come up with Office of Disinformation output, so I'd better be able to put on my staff assessment how I riled up the mob into a total riot which justified shock and awe and sales by the $billion of new rockets, bombs, ammunition and economic stimulation."

The USA doesn't benefit from a hoax about registration of Jews and their property, and neither does New Zealand but Occam's Razor [to trade cliches, see your cui bono and raise you] says that the USA is who dunnit. Ipso facto. Quo vadis. Ultra vires. Infra vide. Habeas corpus. Inter alia.

Mqurice



To: bart13 who wrote (105686)4/20/2014 2:56:12 PM
From: Haim R. Branisteanu  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 217652
 
Stranger by the hour

Ukraine's police and intelligence service accused Russia of staging a fatal shooting incident on Sunday in which pro-Moscow separatists were killed in the east of the country.

At least three people were killed in a gunfight in the early hours of Sunday near a Ukrainian city controlled by pro-Russian separatists, shaking an already fragile international accord that was designed to avert a wider conflict.

The incident triggered a war of words between Moscow and Ukraine's western-backed government with each questioning the other's compliance with the agreement, brokered last week in Geneva, to end a crisis that has made Russia's ties with the West more fraught than at any time since the Cold War.

The separatists said armed men from Ukraine's Right Sector nationalist group had attacked them. The Right Sector denied any role, saying Russian special forces were behind the clash.

haaretz.com