Psychology studies show it's not the absolute material wealth that makes you happy and content but the relative, in comparison to others in your social group
This especially makes sense for men who are working to attract women. If you're the richest guy in the neighborhood, whether you're making $100 a week compared to everyone else's $90 a week, or whether you're making $1,000,000 a week compared to everyone else's $900,000 a week, simply by being the richest you'll have a greatly improved chance of attracting the best looking women in the neighborhood.
Because when you go to a party, get drunk, and shit yourself on the sofa, you stay behind to help clean up or you never get invited back again.
On the other hand if show up and spend 40 years keeping someone from getting killed they might seem a bit ungrateful if they complain about you getting diarrhea while doing so.
It's about fraud. Widespread organised fraud. Should that really be legal in your opinion? Or should it be legal if they do it "for the party", since it's fraud for the sake of politics? The entire reason we've got all this shit is because of some donors setting the agenda and turning science denial into a political point of difference between two parties when both used to consider reality previously. Do you deny science for The Party comrade? Papers please.
Assuming the global warming warners are correct, the reason we have this issue is the people doing the warning have made several huge mistakes.
1. They have not lived as though they believed their warnings. The Democrats supposedly believe the world is going to be very messed up, and yet it is way down on their list of priorities. World leaders who presumably have good access to intelligence don't seem very concerned. Al Gore flew around in carbon spewing private planes while living in heavy carbon footprint house.
2. They have discredited themselves by setting themselves up to make a profit from the hysteria. Exhibit A is again Al Gore with his investments: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new... http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11...
3. Al Gore becoming the first major spokesperson was a huge mistake because he's clearly a partisan and had just come through a brutal campaign. He was bound to make half the electorate skeptical. If George W. Bush had lost the election and immediately started talking about global warming then it would be the Democrats claiming the whole thing was a host and yet another example of "the politics of fear".
4. Using words like "denier" and saying "the debate is over" as a way to shout down and shut down debate rather than trying to convince people. We need fewer articles that threaten and insult skeptics and more articles that respectfully explain both sides of the debate. Everytime the word "denier" shows up in print it reinforces the idea that the global warming believers know they can't make a case and have to result to poisoning the well attacks.
When the WSJ was sold the bias of the paper shifted not-so-subtly to the right. It may be a top-tier newspaper, but its bias clearly indicates it is a tool of the Murdoch empire.
Comparing the WSJ to the Washington Post probably is appropriate since the Washington Post shares the right wing bias.
The bottom line is that he owns way too many media outlets which tends to drown out other voices. The argument that any of his media outlets are truly independent is really a joke. They publish what he wants them to publish through direct, indirect, or implied influence. That is why the hate.
Washington Post has a "right-wing bias"? Since when is "right-wing" pro-abortion, pro-Democrats, pro-illegal immigration, pro-Obamacare, pro-gay-marriage, and pro-big-buiness-bailouts?
And once again another reminder that anyone carrying a cellphone is effectively transmitting their location to the authorities at all times.
The summary also mentioned CCTV. Just another reminder that anyone reflecting light is effectively transmitting their location to the authorities at all times.