Outlander 3.5: The 1960s and the Past

Outlander 3.5 finally got Claire and Jamie back together - twenty years after they last were together, in the 1700s, with Jamie now in Edinburgh.  There were lots of nice touches, including Jamie being located by a literary device - literally - I first noticed in Isaac Asimov's The End of Eternity (still my all-time favorite time travel story) back in the 1950s.  The person in the past wanting to let someone in the future know where to find him or her puts an ad in a newspaper with some reference to some event that hasn't happened yet (Asimov's method) or a poem from the future (Jamie's method) as a marker for the future to see.   It's a nice, soft touch, and usually does the trick.

Claire's anxiety about whether Jamie will still love her, find her attractive, makes sense and was handled well.  But, as is always is the case for Outlander for me - and maybe this stems, again, from my not having read the books (I almost sound like John Lennon here in "A Day in the Life") - there are some pieces of this unfolding narrative that don't quite make sense.

Such as, why doesn't Brianna and her beau, an historian no less, go with Claire to the past?  That would alleviate at least some of Claire's qualms.  I get that Claire doesn't want to risk her daughter's life, and wants her to have the benefits of living in the United States in the second part of the 20th century, but why was this not even discussed at some length?   Also, let's face it, the 60s especially in America were a time of turmoil and assassinations - by Christmas 1968, not only JFK, but Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy had been killed.  Wouldn't Claire at least have considered the benefits of removing Claire from that?

My wife also noticed a minor error of history in the episode: women weren't admitted to Harvard proper until the mid-1970s.  They could take Harvard classes, and earn Harvard degrees, but as Radcliffe students (Radcliffe was Harvard's "sister school").  With all the talk of Brianna dropping out of Harvard, some small mention should have been made of that.

But it was nonetheless wonderful to see Claire and Jamie together again, and I'm looking forward to more in two weeks.

See also Outlander Season 3 Debut: A Tale of Two Times and Places ...Outlander 3.2: Whole Lot of Loving, But ... Outlander 3.3: Free and Sad ... Outlander 3.4: Love Me Tender and Dylan

And see also Outlander 2.1: Split Hour ... Outlander 2.2: The King and the Forest ... Outlander 2.3: Mother and Dr. Dog ... Outlander 2.5: The Unappreciated Paradox ... Outlander 2.6: The Duel and the Offspring ...Outlander 2.7: Further into the Future ... Outlander 2.8: The Conversation ... Outlander 2.9: Flashbacks of the Future ... Outlander 2.10: One True Prediction and Counting ... Outlander 2.11: London Not Falling ... Outlander 2.12: Stubborn Fate and Scotland On and Off Screen ... Outlander Season 2 Finale: Decades

And see also Outlander 1.1-3: The Hope of Time Travel ... Outlander 1.6:  Outstanding ... Outlander 1.7: Tender Intertemporal Polygamy ...Outlander 1.8: The Other Side ... Outlander 1.9: Spanking Good ... Outlander 1.10: A Glimmer of Paradox ... Outlander 1.11: Vaccination and Time Travel ... Outlander 1.12: Black Jack's Progeny ...Outlander 1.13: Mother's Day ... Outlander 1.14: All That Jazz ... Outlander Season 1 Finale: Let's Change History

Outlander 3.2: Whole Lot of Loving, But ...

Outlander 3.2 put on a good show tonight, with Claire and Frank making love in the late 1940s, and Jaime doing the same (mostly off camera) back in those 1750s...

Problem is, Claire's thinking of Jaime (of course), and Frank knows it (also of course).  And Jaime doesn't really want to, but, hey, he's gone too long without it, and he closes his eyes.

I have an idea (and, again, I should say that I haven't read the novels, so I know nothing beyond this very episode).  But, if Jaime misses Claire so deeply, and he wants to stop endangering his sister and her family (his family, too), why doesn't he just make his way to up to those standing stones and try to find Claire in the future?

But that said, it was still a good episode, especially seeing what Jaime's family went through to protect him, and what Claire's going through to assert her professional aspirations at Harvard in the 1940s, where apparently women were not usually thought of as doctors.

I say apparently, because I grew up in the 1950s, and two of my pediatricians - both excellent - were women.   Where did they get their degrees?  If we're to believe Outlander, presumably not at Harvard - which, if true, says Harvard was a lot more misogynistic (and racist, too) than other colleges and universities.

But I digress.   We clearly have a good, tense, dramatic situation now in Outlander, with Claire and Jaime both missing and wanting each other, and not only an ocean but an ocean of time between them.  It will be fun to see if and how they manage to cross it.

See also Outlander Season 3 Debut: A Tale of Two Times and Places

And see also Outlander 2.1: Split Hour ... Outlander 2.2: The King and the Forest ... Outlander 2.3: Mother and Dr. Dog ... Outlander 2.5: The Unappreciated Paradox ... Outlander 2.6: The Duel and the Offspring ...Outlander 2.7: Further into the Future ... Outlander 2.8: The Conversation ... Outlander 2.9: Flashbacks of the Future ... Outlander 2.10: One True Prediction and Counting ... Outlander 2.11: London Not Falling ... Outlander 2.12: Stubborn Fate and Scotland On and Off Screen ... Outlander Season 2 Finale: Decades

And see also Outlander 1.1-3: The Hope of Time Travel ... Outlander 1.6:  Outstanding ... Outlander 1.7: Tender Intertemporal Polygamy ...Outlander 1.8: The Other Side ... Outlander 1.9: Spanking Good ... Outlander 1.10: A Glimmer of Paradox ... Outlander 1.11: Vaccination and Time Travel ... Outlander 1.12: Black Jack's Progeny ...Outlander 1.13: Mother's Day ... Outlander 1.14: All That Jazz ... Outlander Season 1 Finale: Let's Change History

Good That Obama Says Cambridge Police Acted "Stupidly" in Gates Arrest

Good to hear President Obama tonight characterize the Cambridge, MA police as acting "stupidly," in their arrest of Harvard professor Skip Gates in his home for disorderly conduct. Gates, an African-American, had trouble getting into his home - the door was jammed - so he went in via the back door with his key. But not before a concerned citizen called the police to report a possible break-in. "So far, so good," as Obama said. But when the police arrived, and Gates showed them his ID, he was arrested. "The Cambridge police acted stupidly," Obama aptly said.

Also in racist way.

I'm Caucasian, but once upon a time I was a teenaged kid in New York City, and I saw plenty of outrageous treatment of teens by New York City police. And that was a mild form of profiling indeed compared to what African-Americans have been subject to in this country.

The Cambridge police dropped the idiotic charges.

Now I hope Gates or someone pursues charges against them - for an outrageous, racist arrest.

Make the Dream Come True

I learned a long time ago that the really big events in politics and elections and their consequences are unpredictable almost until the time they occur. I was a kid when JFK was elected, and supported him in the campaign, but I had no idea his Presidency would lead to the liberating revolutions of the 1960s, and a human being on the Moon by the end of the decade. I thought Reagan was a joke when he was governor of California, and thought he would lose to Carter, and even when he won, I didn't think his Presidency would have much impact. When Bush was first reported as winning Florida in 2000, I was aggravated to say the least, and when Gore was on top by the end of the night I was thrilled - I had no idea that the US Supreme Court would make Bush President in the end.

I first became aware of Barack Obama when I saw him speak, on television, at the 2004 Democratic Convention in Boston. My son, covering the convention and the speech for The Harvard Crimson, saw that speech in person. My whole family thought Obama was great. I don't think a single one of us thought he really had a chance at the White House in 2008.

I endorsed Obama in my blog last December. I later said I thought he'd win the popular vote by 10% and the Electoral College handily. I of course had no real knowledge - those predictions were an instinct, a hope, a dream of setting America and the world on a better course.

And now it all comes down to tomorrow. The polls say Obama is ahead. But the only poll that counts, as everyone knows, is what happens at the actual polls.

I'm pulling for a fulfillment of what couldn't have been predicted even five years ago.

We've had a lot bad surprises in the past decades. America and humanity are due to have a good one.

As Obama just said in his closing speech in Manassas, Virginia, broadcast on CSPAN: Fired Up! Ready to Go!

New York Times and Harvard Miss the Point About News

The New York Times reported a few weeks ago that "Young Adults Are Giving Newspapers Scant Notice" - this being the conclusion of a Harvard study which found "only 16 percent of the young adults surveyed aged 18 to 30 said that they read a newspaper every day and 9 percent of teenagers said that they did." This means kids "aren't acquiring the news habit," observed Thomas Patterson, the Harvard professor who conducted the survey.

I think Patterson, Harvard, and, as per usual, The New York Times, are missing a crucial point: kids, teenagers, and young adults are getting their news on Digg, Netscape, Fark, and similar news sites.

People under thirty not giving up on the news - they're giving up on outmoded ways of presenting it.

Why read a newspaper, on paper or online, when you get headlines from hundreds of newspapers on Digg - in addition to blog posts and anything else with a url?

Nor does this mean that newspapers are finished - they just have to think of themselves as something different, a generator of stories that other sites pick up and distribute. In that sense, traditional organizations such as Reuters and AP are well ahead of newspapers in this new media world.

Of course, one problem that newspapers such as The New York Times will have is publishing misleading stories. It was one thing when the reader had the whole newspaper in hand, the good and the badly reported. It is quite another when a reader can effortlessly click off a story and go someplace else for another, or better rendition - or a different story entirely.