#jane meyer

[notwiselybuttoowell]

I'm going to put a partial transcript to this interview, which will be lengthy and dense. But it is really worth reading or watching the video itself. I'd even venture to add a request that you do, because it is eye opening.

MAYER: [...] Even before the decision came down from the Supreme Court, you could hear during their arguments that the conservatives Brett Kavanaugh particular made a big point of saying, if we just send these issues, these hard issues like abortion back to the states, we can just let the people decide. And what I was hearing — and the reason I looked at Ohio, in particular, was I was hearing from someone who I’d interviewed named David Pepper, who’s written a book about Ohio, that in fact, it’s not really the people deciding when you can give these issues back to a state like Ohio. It’s the legislature that’s deciding. And the legislatures in a number of American states no longer reflect the will of the people. That’s why we talk about torching democracy. The people have one opinion, the general public, if you look at polls, feels one way. But the legislatures are way out of sync with what the population, in general, believes. And that’s true in Ohio and that’s what this man, David Pepper, was telling me who’s written a book that’s called, “Laboratories for Autocracy”. It’s a play on a phrase that came from Justice Louis Brandeis who called the state legislatures in America laboratories for democracy. And what he is saying is actually, this is where autocracy in America is growing and brewing. And it’s an attack on democracy taking place in these states. And Ohio typifies it. So, that’s why I went there.

MARTIN: In the piece, you site a political science professor at the University of Cincinnati. It sited, a 2020 survey indicating that less than 14 percent of Ohioans support banning all abortions without exceptions for rape and incest. But that’s not the direction of the Ohio legislature is heading in. In fact, I think the story that a lot of people may be familiar with is the story of this 10-year-old girl who was sexually assaulted by an adult male, became pregnant, and then had to go to Indiana to obtain an abortion because it was impossible in her home state of Ohio. So, how did it get to the point in a place like Ohio where there’s such divergence between what people say they want in matters of significant public concern and what the legislature is actually doing?

MAYER: It was actually a deliberate plan. And there aren’t that many things in American politics that really follow anybody’s plans because it’s a mess most of the time. But back in 2010, the Republican Party’s smartest operatives looked around and they were very distressed. Barack Obama had been elected in 2008. It was a shock to many white conservatives to have a black American president who was a liberal Democrat to some extent — liberal that is to some extent. And they had lost power in both Houses of Congress and the White House. And they were looking around the country to try to figure out, well, where can we take power? And the places that seemed to be easiest to capture were state legislatures. And so, there was this very interesting plan that was drawn up called Red Map by the Republican Party operatives. And they set out to very deliberately flip as many statehouses as they could into Republican control. And there was a year that 2010 was very much on their mind to do that year. Because that’s a census year, every 10 years there’s a U.S. census. And every time there’s a census, the statehouses get to reapportion the districts, both for Congress and for the statehouse. So, it gives the legislature special powers during those years. And they figured, if we can take the statehouses, you could redraw the lines and you could do it in such a way that you would totally advantage the Republican Party. And that’s exactly what they did in a bunch of states. They picked up an incredible number of statehouses that year. They flipped them to the Republican party, they took control of a number of them, and they set out to very systematically and scientifically redraw the district so that in many places Republicans — I mean, they can barely lose no matter what they do. And that’s what — that was — you know, more than 10 years ago, 12 years ago. What we’re now seeing, we’re seeing the consequences. This is like a science experiment in democracy. You’re saying, well, what happens when you make it so that people can’t lose their elections? What kind of behavior do you get in the statehouses? And what you get is really extremist legislation because the only pressure on these peoples’ lives in the Republican Party is that they might be facing primary challenges from candidates who are even more extreme than they are. And so, that’s those — who the people who come out to vote in primaries. That’s what they’re worried about. And they couldn’t care less about the opposing party’s point of views. So, they keep moving further and further to the extreme. And that’s what’s happened in Ohio.

MARTIN: So, as you said that this dates back to a strategy that was started being implemented in 2010. What were the Democrats doing during all this time? I mean, they had 10 years between 2010 and the 2020 census to intervene in this process or whatever. What were they doing all this time?

MAYER: Well, in 2010 itself, I have to say, they were kind of asleep at the switch. They were not paying attention to the statehouses. There was a lot — there were a lot of other fires that the Obama White House was trying to put out in 2010. That was the rise of the Tea Party and all of that. And they really, I think, took their eye off the ball. The thing is, once these statehouses do flip as they have an Ohio, it’s very hard to flip it back. Because the districts are very carefully drawn with the aid of computers and all kinds of, you know, very detailed numbers. They’re drawn in a way that Democrats can’t really compete in them. And so, what’s happened in Ohio was it was so out of sync with the state. The state did would you would think would happen in democracy. They had a referendum that passed. They had two referenda, actually. It was in 2015 and 2018, the voters of Ohio overwhelmingly passed a change to the constitution in the state that said that the districts have to reflect the overall population’s point of view. So, they were supposed to do this under law and fit — they were supposed to fix it. And that’s what was going to happen this year. But the Republicans who are in power in the statehouse, and they had a supermajority, kept handing in maps that the courts kept striking down. It happened five times. The Supreme Court in the State of Ohio said five times to the Republicans who are drawing the maps, these don’t comply with the law. These are illegal districts. They are too slanted. You’ve got to have to do it again. And basically, what happened was the Republicans played out the clock. They hit the election calendar. There was no more time to come up with another map. And the federal courts said, all right, just use the illegal ones. And so, here we are. Another election with illegal districts.

MARTIN: How is that possible?

MAYER: I mean, it’s totally — it is completely shocking. It violates norms. It violates the rule of law. And this is one of the other reasons I went to Ohio, because it’s an outrageous story. But the truth is, it’s not unique. “The New York Times” had a story pointing out there are four states now where the same thing has been happening. The courts have struck down these districts in these states as illegal districts. They are too slanted, they don’t allow for Democratic elections, and these states are Georgia and Alabama, and Louisiana, and Ohio. So, four states, in each case, the courts have struck them down. Each case, these states are going with the elections anyway because they ran out the clock.

MARTIN: They just didn’t comply. And is there — there is no mechanism of accountability for this, is, I think, what I hear you saying?

MAYER: No. However, the Supreme Court talked about holding the Republicans in contempt, but the Supreme Court didn’t do it. And actually, the Supreme Court justices are now up for reelection. So, it may be that the Republican majority will get a Republican majority that’s in favor of them on the Supreme Court, in which case, that final check will be out the window.

MARTIN: Why is there not more — I don’t know what’s to say — outrage about this, even among partisans? I mean, it just seems — it seems like this would kind of cry out for a response. But why do you think it don’t? Is it just too abstract, people just can’t wrap their heads around it?

MAYER: People don’t pay attention to state legislatures. They — you know, they don’t know who their legislator is and people are busy, and these state legislators don’t get a lot of coverage from the news organizations, especially now that local news is really disappearing in a lot of places. So, they’re kind of getting away with it because no one’s — you know, no one’s that — paying that much attention. And then, these big, glamorous races are the ones that get the attention and the money. So, you know, there’s a very high-profile Senate race in Ohio that a lot of important party people on both sides are paying a lot of attention to, and a lot — putting a lot of money into. It’s the Senate race between J.D. Vance and Tim Ryan, and that — you know, that will get a lot of attention. But the legislature’s, they’re sort of seeing this second string, or at least they were, until the Supreme Court in overturning Roe said, we are throwing this back to the states, and they are going to throw other things back to the states. The states are getting more power. It’s almost a two-step with the conservative Supreme Court. They (INAUDIBLE) sent an issue back to the states where they know the states are on their side.

MARTIN: This sounds like, what you’re saying, is that one party is willing to cheat. Or does that sound right or is that overstating the phrase?

MAYER: Well, it’s kind of legal. Well, it’s not completely legal because the Supreme Court and the state said it wasn’t illegal. But then, the federal courts said it was. So, it’s in a gray zone. But what I am told, from the reporting I did, is that the Republican — the far-right Republican base is intimidating to moderates who are afraid they will lose. If they don’t go along, they are afraid to lose their seats. And we’ve seen this in courts in Congress with the same dynamic taking place, when people have tried to stand up to Trump. And the same thing is happening in Ohio. This is — it’s empowering extremists, far-right extremists, and the others are afraid of standing in the way because they will be defeated. And you can see it, in a way, this is a very good example, the governor of Ohio, Mike DeWine, was known as a moderate Republican for many years. And he actually was quite enlightened in the way that he started to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic. But the sort of radical right in the statehouse, which has veto power, because it’s got such a super majority, the radical right rose up and opposed the kind of mask mandates and some of the other measures that Mike DeWine took in the beginning of the pandemic and they — the legislature fired the health commissioner for the state, and basically forced DeWine to retreat. And so, it’s very empowered. It’s a very intimidating group that has taken over these statehouses, and that’s certainly true in Ohio.

MARTIN: If the voters don’t agree, at some point, is there not a movement against that? I mean, at some point, if the voters say, this is not what we want, is — I guess what I’m saying, there is no mechanism now to resist these initiatives? Is there?

MAYER: Well, it’s the same — I had exactly the same question when I went there, because it seems like inevitably, they will go too far right, they will do things that are so unpopular that a more rational kind of moderate Republican who is closer to where most people are in the state will win. That is what you would think. But it turns out that is not true. And people said to me, you might think that there’s the possibility that the extremists will go too far. And I was told over and over again, that is a false idea. You can’t go too far. And that was so fascinating. I mean, and scary because they really have legislated some incredibly extreme things, and there’s no accountability for it because they can’t lose. That’s the problem.

[janemeyerart]

Two Houses

Colored pencil on paper

6” X 4”

2019

[briggycat]

Reading the book is not enough. I need to eat it.

[periodcostumefantasylover]

Perioddrama Appreciation Week

Day 1: Favorite Tv Show: The Tudors

[edvthecvllen]

‘irrevocably’ is a twilight word™️ and ‘ardently’ is a pride and prejudice word™️ i won’t be taking any questions thank you

[peacefulandcozy]

Instagram credit: danielapardor

[jamesfrain]

Henry VIII and Jane Seymour wedding day — 30 may, 1536.

The Tudors (2007-2010) — S03E01 'Civil Unrest'

[the-tvdors]

THE TUDORS + HENRY VIII WEDDINGS

Anne Boleyn: 2x03 Jane Seymour: 3x01 Anne of Cleves: 3x07 Katherine Howard: 4x01 Catherine Parr: 4x07

asked by anon

[catherinesboleyn]

THE TUDORS WEEK 2023

Day 4 | best scene

Mistress Seymour scene from 2.08

[stans-hat]

wow forgot about tumblr again gang

[janemeyerart]

Flow

Colored pencil on paper

4 3/4” X 4 3/4”

2019

[athousandtales]

Are you out of your senses? Don't talk of such matters again.

[swdefcult]

[everythingvolturi]

Alec Volturi Character Analysis - Part 1

━ ◦ ❖ ◦━━ ◦ ❖ ◦━━ ◦ ❖ ◦━━ ◦ ❖ ◦━━ ◦ ❖ ◦━━ ◦ ❖ ◦━━ ◦ ❖ ◦━━

Alec New Moon - A blatant disregard for humans.

Although Alec only had a few lines of dialogue, his blatant disregard for human lives is obvious - more so than some other blood-drinking vampires.

His first line was:

"they send you out for one and you come back with two...and a half."

when referencing Jane bringing back Edward, Alice and Bella. Here we see some of his 'dark' humour shine through, but it also highlights how little he thinks of a human's worth compared to vampires.

After examining Bella, he skeptically asked Edward:

"And this is the cause of all the trouble?".

By refusing to use the pronoun 'she', Alec further creates a sense of detachment; objectifying her and reducing her into a mere entity and situation to be dealt with. Even Felix, who acts as the 'bad cop' in the scene and has consistently expressed a keen interest to eat Bella, referred to her as 'the girl'.

Unlike Felix, I do not think Alec is saying these things to intentionally provoke anyone. I think that his disregard for humans is so deeply ingrained that he genuinely find the situation preposterously amusing. Alec is someone who keeps up appearances (this is the person who spoke to the Cullens with so much ‘warmth…like lifelong friends' once Aro found them to be innocent). He’s too smart to engage for the sole purpose of angering Edward and humiliating Bella.

This indifference and disregard for humans is interesting. Compared to other 'bad' vampires like James, Victoria, Laurent, who were tempted by Bella's scent, viewed her as a toy/challenge, or the key to revenge. Or Jane and Caius, who openly despise Bella and saw her as a threat, inconvenience, or a mockery of the law, Alec gives us nothing. He is able to objectify Bella and tease her worthlessness, and then speak to her as a lifelong friend within the span of a few hours. It is quite terrifying. Perhaps an extension of his gift?

Alec most exhibits what Stephenie Meyer said about how vampires view humans:

"To most vampires, humans are like a herd of cows."(twilightlexicon - 2006/04/18)

"Other Twilight vampires see humans as beef or poultry." (twilightlexicon - 2007/05/20)

"Human lives are so short—sort of like fruit flies that only live a day in comparison." (twilightlexicon - 2007/05/20)

Imho, most twilight vampires give humans more time of day than I expected. You don’t get angry at a herd of cows, and you don’t waste time humiliating a fruit fly; you simply don’t care for their existence.