Author Archives: Violet G. Beekeeper

100% opposed to fun.

Happy 70s Lesbian Weekend

image

I have been sewing and listening to my Linda Rondstat Pandora station. I mean whatever all my Pandora stations converge on Linda Rondstat eventually. (I made the cuff for my friend). I’m gonna bake later. Also, am wearing linen pants.

A disproportionate number of my law school friends are guys because the women in law school are all super competent alphas with shiny hair like, owning it left and right.

There was some comedian -Maria Bamford, the google tells me – who I saw a clip of like a million years ago on comedy central and the line that stuck with me was “sometimes I worry that I don’t want to get married so much as I want to get dipped in a vat of warm rising bread dough.” I am in that place right now except bread dough is too sensual. I would like to be in a crystal pod like Zod.

Ok whatever.

-Vi

Advertisements

Things That are Super Gross In Retrospect

Hi Rusty,

Apropos our earlier conversation about Free The Paedos, now The Swan and the Paedo whatever, I recalled being 11 and sitting under those colorful parachutes that are probably just made out of pure dibenzoxin, and talking with the trampy girl in my class who wore tight dresses and was going after school to meet her boyfriend in college. Now I see, not trampy, being molested!

Also on the schoolbus this other trampy girl was waving at truck drivers who were then flirting back at her and asked to see her tits and she was about to show them then my bus driver hit the breaks and yelled “SHE’S TWELVE” at them. Way to go busdriver Pete. Anyway, now I see, also not trampy! Truck drivers probably should have been arrested, at least a little.

Gross,

Violet

Letters about letters

Rusty,

No real intellectual engagement here, just wanted to share another correspondence with you:

My Friend: saw a case today, it was like Cherokee Indians v. Some Railroad, SCOTUS from 1890.  Bet you I can guess who won before I read that.

Me: Though on some level the Cherokee won too, because now they can use
the railroad. No lie, I am reading up on Louisville and Nashville RRd and a couple other Southern RRds which, long after the civil war, just held slaves. No joke. Not particularly circumspect about it, either. Just like, why wouldn’t we have slaves from 1880-1920? + consider, both modern civil procedure doctrine and modern psychology were born out of RRd injuries. Also, they finally got rid of the LIRR bar car which was the most sordid place in the entire world. This is all to say, wtf trains.

My friend: this is one of my fav emails from you of all time.

Rusty, I write pretty good emails and am frankly not sure what made this one the best, aside from trains being pretty interesting, but if he enjoyed it that much you might too because I think you’re both the sort of guys who are secretly hoping you’ll be able to get away with wearing hipster bolo ties before you age out of wearing hipster anything. It’s ok, i have a pat-benatar style headscarf on right now.

Ok whatever get internet in your house. Time to go listen to some Roxy Music.
-Vi

Perfectly Accurate Product Labels I Didn’t Expect To See

The big chain pharmacy by the kid’s daycare sells homeopathic remedies for “symptoms of delayed menses.”

The new pants dance

Dear R,

I hope your semester is going well. I’m being re-radicalized by my Job Law class. I’d totally forgotten why I loved collective bargaining more than anything, and why I got frustrated with the current manifestations of consumer activism, and then I remembered.  Maybe I’ll type that on my computer some other day when I’m supposed to be writing a case study.

Today, though, while I am supposed to be writing a case study, I want to talk to you about political economy vs. um, the actual economy. True fact, which you may well know: domestic and agricultural workers are excluded from basically all federal worker-helping programs, eg, unemployment, rights to organize, etc.

Why is this? Well, during the New Deal, the Democrats were part Rooseveltians and part the party that empowered Strom Thurmond. The latter wasn’t going to vote with the former on anything that raised the social wage of southern black workers, and so we get a fucked-up compromise.

OK. HISTORY LESSON OVER. LAW LESSON BEGINS.

My friend, if you are going to challenge a law of the United States or its pet states as unconstitutional, you will run into the three-tiered review system developed over the years by the SCOTUS of us. Essentially:

(A)If a law (1)violates a fundamental right or (2)messes with a protected (historically and systematically disadvantaged) class, it gets Strict Scrutiny which basically means it has to be the only way to achieve an overwhelmingly important governmental interest.

(B)If a law does not do either of those things, it just gets rational review, which means it has to be a nominally defensible way to deal with some legitimate government interest.

(C)If a law is about ladies, it’s somewhere in between. (I have more thoughts about intermediate review and what it does and should actually mean, but this is totally another discussion. I’d be very surprised if the current court used it for anything).

Anyway. Laws discriminating based on economic class don’t get strict scrutiny. I think they should, but I am also basically a cryptoMarxist. So the government only needs to advance a plausible rationale for the law.  (The fact that the law was ACTUALLY discriminatory doesn’t count either, there’s not a disparate impact claim under equal protection law. You have to actually show discriminatory intent. Which is nuts, of course). Right. Ok. So, basically this law is challenged in Fed. district court in California, Romero v. Hodgson in 1970. Government says, we are subsidizing agriculture, this is an ok way to do it, don’t bug us. (The dissent points out that Congress knows how to create an agricultural subsidy if that’s really what it wants to do, but not my point here.)

Anyway, the opinion basically comes out and says that political compromise on big legislation like this _is_ a legitimate government interest. That’s sort of shocking in the context of the history of this particular law, but I wonder if we’d tolerate that interpretation in other contexts. I don’t know. What do you think?

-v

Awesome Legislative Procedure, Secret Compartment

Hi Rusty,

Did I ever tell you about Awesome Guy? There is someone working for Goodwill in the midwest/great lakes who really understands how to use the word awesome.

See eg:

Lot of Awesome Pleather Pants

Awesome Old Germany Crest Empire Plate

Awesome 4` Cast Iron Fly w/ Secret Compartment

Awesome ‘Underdog’ T-Shirt Size M NWOT

I mean I guess it could be Awesome Lady too, but this is hitting the glass ceiling of my mind. Does this make me seem like I am laughing at Awesome Guy?  I hope not.  His enthusiasm for people’s random old knick-nacks and attempt to generate similar enthusiasm in purchasers is one of my great joys in life.

You know what’s not awesome? I have a friend who is not from The One True America, yet who started as a Federal Employee only to be notified that 9 months ago, some rass-andom Congresscritter stuck a line in an appropriations bill that no Federal employees who were not citizens could be paid (or similar), and they just read the bill like last week, and all the Federal bosses got a phone call. So basically, the whole government is now scrambling to figure out how to pretend that didn’t pass so that they can keep on paying foreign citizens who as you can imagine hold all sorts of essential positions in I don’t know, the Department of Defense? Anyway, apparently the fact that you can do this anonymously is a problem but what I think is a bigger problem is seriously, if you can’t have some staffer read it and check in within 9 months, not really a law.

This is why I have a speck of tolerance in my heart for people who feel like the best means of social change is being modification of their consumer behavior, that is, hipster farmers. I have no tolerance for this puritanism from anyone though. Except my mom, who told me that we shouldn’t be promiscuous, and Rimbaud should not have either but at least Rimbaud had syphilis to keep him in line(!!!)

I obviously feel like the best means of social change is checking in on Awesome Guy daily.

Uh I hope you are having fun never by yourself all the time.

Federally Mandated,

Violet

product placement

Rusty,

This isn’t about law or economics or even really feelings, but my dog is a jerk so we got him a special collar called the “Gentle Leader” which just cracks me the fuck up.

place over muzzle for glory of all dogs!

vigilant always, fasten behind ears and tighten like the fist of the nation around the throat of decadent bourgeoise!

anyway you’ve seen this right? You should look at it in Philly, to replicate my true philly experience?

Yours 18-12 months ago,

Violet

THRILLER HELLPHIA

Rusty!  I have important words of wisdom before your voyage. As of 1.5 yrs ago, all the “young people” were hanging out in Fishtown, which, ew, right?! I just went to (relatively) expensive places and god propositioned by like 9th-tier finance guys. Usually I wouldn’t normally, but its a dream so…

There’s this one guy who makes all these kind of terrible theme restaurants except they’re not supposed to be theme restaurants like RAINFOREST CAFE FREE RAFT RIDE, but I couldn’t tell you what distinguishes them. I recommend going to them all, good for meeting hot trixie-equivalents. I was at one of them with my favorite person when she became my favorite person. She’s like this tiny little blond who looks like I don’t even know and ACTUALLY wears Juicy velour sweatsuits. And this guy was all hey, where’s your fiance and she was all I don’t have a fiance and he was all why do you have a ring on and she said I think ALL MY FINGERS BELONG TO ME. She’s like a 2nd wave feminist mole from the past! In gross philly theme-bars! They made her in 1974 and she only self-activated recently? I have 16 more awesome and funnier stories to tell you about her, but only in secret.

Anyway, my point is go to all these theme bars. Also Rittenhouse Terminal Market is no fucking joke. Also, go watch court proceedings? And get a cheap massage at the massage school? Uh, get some socks at H&M. Go see Stepbrothers and curse out the kids throwing chips at you. Oh, there are crazy street people like WOAH no matter how unsketchy the neighborhood seems, some guy’s gonna be there bleeding from his ears.

-Vi

Badminton Law

Hi Rusty,

I’ve been ill/then got roid rage from the medicine then got ill again then got roid rage again. But it hasn’t stopped me from thinking that I want to make you think about a thing.

So one of the things that interests me is why people do/care about stuff, since I don’t do/care about anything. I don’t even mean that, but my energy totally maxes out at the interpersonal level. If I need to engage institution-level problems that can’t be handled through a conversation, I am like, fuck it. So FORGET about activism, entirely.

Anyway, so Michael Hayes’ transactional model of the legislative process – basically, the story of how supply (of awesome laws Congress can make) matches up with demand (of interest groups who will vote for people to make them awesome laws). I am a little leery of any model that assumes anyone knows what they want or how to get it, but putting that sort of high level concern aside, sure, sounds like Congress.

So we follow this through (according to my admin law txtbook) and we have a model where outcomes are

Widely distributed benefits and costs: don’t happen because no interest groups mobilize

Concentrated benefits, dispersed costs: will happen and happen and happen and compound self and happen again and all hail King Piperlime.

Broad  or concentrated benefit, concentrated costs: won’t happen because an “interest group” is the cost avoiders. Actually my textbook says here the cost-getting job gets delegated to an administrative agency which is then underfunded and the congresscritters can be like look at this terrible bureaucracy preventing out beautiful statute from being fully carried out oh alas alack.

So ok. Let’s talk ACA for a second. It seems to me like a pretty classic broad-benefit concentrated cost proposition. (Single-payer might be dead in the water as broad benefit/broad-cost?)

DHHS manages/enforces it. I am not reading the whole statute about enforcement mechanisms but anyway. DHHS is a kind of funny is-it-cabinet-is-it-legislative, but agency is an agency is an agency.

Anyway, theoretically, we feel good bc yay insurance except it’s implemented terribly because if it was implemented well then interest groups would mobilize and force out the legislators who imposed costs.

What I don’t get is how on earth Republicans are mobilizing based on repeal. I mean seriously. This is like, whipping people into a frenzy over Paperwork Reduction Act Reform. And the incredible amount of political capital spent to get it passed… well it could still be a good thing if the Hayes predictions about enforcement/cost imposition don’t turn out to be true. I want to look more into how DHHS is empowered here.

The group theory is interesting to me. Especially because ok we’re thinking, lobbyists, or local economies or whatever, but can People Who Do What Sarah Palin Tells them too be considered an interest group? Haha populism my asssssssss.

What do you think? Do you like figs or dates? I hate them.

-Violet

The synchronicity has got a hold of me.

Dear,

In the throes of death beddridden pneumonia, and watched the Frontline on the vaccine wars on Nexflix instant. I have intelligent things to say about this, tk, and you will see the lawyer in me but in the meantime I’d like to note that I am one of those congenitally feeble people whose life almost certainly depends on herd immunity.

Meanwhile, I watched the Red Shoes last night. Svengali stories are great, and last MadMen had plenty to say about them. So did Vacceine Wars in a way.

V