ION, rain is yuck

It really is.

Also, no one is asking me to do any work, which means I should be catching up on all the low priority stuff, but that requires motivation, and I ain't got none.

Once you get past $75,000/year, money can't make you happy: [link]

The indefinite detention news is making me sick to my stomach. Here is a bearded dragon playing Ant Crusher:

[link]

Once you get past $75,000/year, money can't make you happy:

But... Hookers and blow!

Me

>Unfortunately the constitution does not provide all that much protection if your rights in practice unless you have a popular movement objecting to the violation of your rights.

Debetess

IANAL, but I don't think this is quite accurate.

I am trying to get over my habit of posting TLDR. But I'm going to relapse. In practice I think it is true. Generally the Supreme court makes progressive rulings when there is popular pressure to do so - even if that pressure comes from a noisy well organized minority. In the absence of such popular pressure, the Supreme court "coincidentally" rules in favor of money and power. We had a case not so long ago where the courts ruled that a man under death sentence by assasination could only challenge that death sentence by coming out in the open - where of course he could be assasinated. His father did not have standing to sue instead or on his behalf, because I guess a father has no interest in keeping his son alive. I'm not saying there were not legal grounds for this ruling. There always are. The Supreme court generally can find legal grounds for whatever way it wants to rule. But its natural tendency is to rule in favor of money and power.

The only exception we had was the Warren court. And that was a brief shining exception in legal history to the way the Supreme court normally acts. And it happened at a time when there were huge popular movements. Normally the Supreme court is the reactionary branch. Pro-slavery in times of slavery,. Pro-corporate in times of corporate power. Pro-military and pro-executive power in times of executive overreach. If you want to predict how the Supreme court will rule - look at the power relations and political implications. I think you will find that a better predictor than assuming some consistent legal view. Not perfect - nothing is 100%. But I bet that yields 90% accurate predictions.

Once you get past $75,000/year, money can't make you happy

I wonder if anyone's calculated this so it can be expressed in terms of cost-of-living. $75k/year in NYC and $75k/year in rural Iowa are two very different amounts of money.

[eta: Also, household vs individual. DH and I make more than $75k/year combined, but because neither of us makes that individually, we both have to work and therefore have to pay for childcare, which costs more than our mortgage.]

I wonder if anyone's calculated this so it can be expressed in terms of cost-of-living. $75k/year in NYC and $75k/year in rural Iowa are two very different amounts of money.

Yeah, if you read down, they say the amount changes by area, so this is something of an average.

I couldn't see where it differentiated by household/individual: I tend to think it's by individual.

Here is a bearded dragon playing Ant Crusher

I wonder if he's wondering why he's not full.

The constitution has limited application to non citizens on foreign soil, w/r/t the due process question.

I think that most of the happiness articles show that once your needs are met, the amount of money doesn't mean that much.