Outlander 4.1: The American Dream

Outlander's return with episode 4.1 was all too relevant and excellent, at turns splendid and brutal, which is the way Outlander has always told its stories.

The lynch pin is Claire's soliloquy to Jamie about what America will become.  Looking west from Virginia in 1767, she tells him about how America will expand and become a vibrant home of opportunity for people around the world.  Even then, Jamie counters with a question of what will become of the native inhabitants.  She truthfully tells him, from her knowledge of mid-20th-America, that the native inhabitants will be killed and forced to live on reservations.  A dream for one can be a nightmare for another, he sagely replies.

But even Claire can have no knowledge that in 2018, America will have a President determined to build a wall to stop immigrants and refugees and the American dream.  The situation in the 4th season of Outlander, in America just before the American Revolution, couldn't have come at a better and more instructive time for us in 2018.

The new villain Stephen Bonnet is suitably charming and despicable, again combining the opposites than animate Outlander.  His attack on Jamie and Claire and their kin and friends on the placid boat on the river at the end was unexpected but in retrospect thoroughly consistent with the struggles of our heroes in this story.  Nothing comes easy for them and their love and the people they love.

As a devotee of time travel, I always enjoy the little and big ways that Claire uses her knowledge of the future to guide Jamie.  In 4.1, she warns him that if he accepts the Crown's officer of land in 1767, he will be on the losing side of the American Revolution that will begin nine years later.  Nice touch.

And, I always like the easy wisdom of Outlander.  This time, it was Jamie's musing about different parts of the body and their different consciences that caught my ear.

And I'll be back here tomorrow with a review of the next episode.

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 ... Outlander 3.5: The 1960s and the Past ... Outlander 3.6: Reunion ... Outlander 3.7: The Other Wife ... Outlander 3.8: Pirates! ... Outlander 3.9: The Seas ...Outlander 3.10: Typhoid Story ... Outlander 3.11: Claire Crusoe ...Outlander 3.12: Geillis and Benjamin Button ... Outlander 3.13: Triple Ending

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

 

It all started in the hot summer of 1960, when Marilyn Monroe walked off the set of The Misfits and began to hear a haunting song in her head, "Goodbye Norma Jean" ...

Jose Antonio Vargas and Joy Reid at Powerhouse Arena

 I first heard about Jose Antonio Vargas in 2007 from my wife Tina.  She was editing Barack Obama's and Hillary Clinton's Wikipedia pages, and Jose had called her for an interview in a article he was writing for The Washington Post about the impact of Wikipedia on that Presidential election.  Those were early days in the advent of social media - or what I call New New Media (buying a book online is new media, creating a book online is new new media, or consumers becoming producers).  Twitter and YouTube were just a year old, and Wikipedia, though a little older, was not allowed as a reference in student papers in probably every class except mine at Fordham University.   But it was a new new medium par excellence - anyone who could read an article on Wikipedia could edit it - and Tina and Jose recognized its importance.

Tina and Jose kept in touch after that article was published in 2007.  We were delighted when Jose's team at The Washington Post won a Pulitzer Prize the following year for their reporting of the Virginia Tech massacre, and applauded his incredible bravery when, in 2011, he announced that he had been living here in the United States since age 12 as an undocumented immigrant.  Jose and I had met for the first time, a month earlier, in May 2011, when we both were guests on The Dylan Ratigan Show on MSNBC, talking about social media and politics.   Tina and I greeted him at a screening of his autobiographical documentary Documented at the Village East Cinema in Manhattan in 2014 and saw it again on CNN.  (Jose had asked Tina to look at part of it before the film was completed.)

We of course were in the front row last night when Jose was interviewed by Joy Reid at the Powerhouse Arena in Brooklyn about his new book, Dear America.  First, the venue, with a Manhattan Bridge archway out the window as backdrop for the speakers, was perfect.  And Joy conducted a savvy and sensitive interview, not easy when you're better known than the subject of interview.  Jose told the story of his difficult and dangerous life, which is the story of his book, which I'll review here in the next few weeks, after I've read it.  It's the story of someone not only unwilling to accept the hand our idiotic and arbitrary immigration laws has dealt him, but unwilling to accept this for everyone else in the same or similar boat as he.   Not only does Jose refuse to live off the radar, he and his group Define American actively campaign in every way they can to take this discriminatory radar, inconsistent with the true spirit of America, totally offline.

From such an all-out warrior, we shouldn't be surprised to find unusual opinions.  Jose of course sees Trump as a threat to what is good in America, but musing about Presidents and their impact on immigrants, he cited George W. Bush as the President who was most congenial to immigrants, meaning that Bill Clinton and Barack Obama not as much.  In other words, Democrats and Republicans have been more equal opportunity abusers of this crucial aspect of the American dream than we may have supposed.

Go see Jose talk wherever you can.  And get his book.  And look here soon for my review.

States' Rights in the Trumpian Era

I've been thinking about states rights these days, as the Feds under Trump's command first separated refugee children from their parents, and, having ended that inhumane practice, are now dragging their heels in the all-important task of getting these families re-united, before even more lasting damage is done to those helpless children.

I say "helpless," because what kind of effective help is there for those people?  Citizens and enlightened groups like RAICES can help, American Airlines and other air carriers have refused to cooperate with the Fed dispersion of the captive kids across the nation, but how can they stand up to the might and force of the Federal government?   Who can insist that a Senator let alone a reporter can walk in and inspect these heartless jails?

I grew up in an era in which the Federal government was the good guy and the states were bad.  In the Civil Rights era, I applauded JFK and others sending in Federal marshals to make sure that states followed the Supreme Court ruling ending segregation in public schools.

But times have changed.   Senator Bill Nelson, turned away from a Federal detention camp in Florida, is the hero.  So is Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York, who is suing the Federal government and its fascist practices.  So other other state governors, including Cuomo, who are refusing to allow their National Guard to be used to support these despicable practices of our Federal government.

I say we need more of that.  I'd like to see Senator Nelson show up next time with a force of Florida State troopers.  That's right.  The essence of our country, as the Founding Fathers saw and created, was a balance between Federal and state sovereignty.   States exercising all forms of their power to stand up to what Trump and his minions are doing has never been more appropriate and necessary.

Humans 3.3: Human Leo on Fictional TV and the American Southern Border in Reality

Humans, the excellent British series about sentient androids aka synths struggling to be treated like human beings in a racist society - i.e., a society that puts the human race above other sentient beings - has an important, especially disturbing relevance to the treatment of people seeking refugee status at our southern border.   The subject matter of Humans would always make it disturbing, but it's never been less escapist and more relevant to what we see on television news these days, in which Trump and his minions have severely damaged the American ideal like no other President in my lifetime, exceeding by a long way any runner-up, which I guess would be Nixon and Watergate.

Episode 3.3 was especially relevant on the differences and fundamental similarities of synth and human, with Leo, previously half-synth and a synth leader, finding it difficult to live into his now fully human essence.   His budding relationship with Mattie is especially promising as a tableau for his emerging humanity, and that's just a part of it.

The other part - related to Mattie, because everything is connected - is what role Leo will play in the synth attempt to find some peaceful place in our human world (or, at least, some of the synths).  Max is finding it increasingly difficult to hold his group together, in part because he realizes that he and his group are in an intractably vulnerable position.  He correctly sees that we humans ultimately hold all of the cards.

Which bring us back to the refugees seeking a better life in the US on our southern border.  These people are totally dependent on our good will and decency.   We have the all the power.   Which is why it's especially infuriating and heartbreaking to see our President misuse and abuse this power.  Drama on television is fiction.  What's happening in Texas is all too real.

See also Humans 3.1: Class Warfare ... Humans 3.2: Mortality

And see also Humans 2.1: Westworld meets Nashville ... Humans 2.2: The Consciousness Code ... Humans 2.3: Motives and Uploads ... Humans 2.4: Android Orgasms ... Humans 2.5-6: Children ... Humans 2.7-8: Universal

And see also Humans: In Ascending Order ... Humans 1.7: "I Think You're Dead, George"

Shop Related Products

The Soft Edge: A Natural History and F…

$35.56

 (8)

Digital McLuhan: A Guide to the Informa…

$30.45$39.95

 (7)

The Plot to Save Socrates (Sierra Wate…

$6.99

 (38)

Cellphone: The Story of the World's Most Mo…

$15.99$37.00

 (6)

The Silk Code (Phil D'Amato series Book 1)

$6.99

 (37)

Heat and Light: Advice for the Next Gener…

$10.60

 (8)

Ads by Amazon 

Some Thoughts on What Trump and His Minions are Doing to Children on our Southern Border

A few thoughts about the horrendous, immoral Trumpian policy of border security separating children from parents of people trying to enter our country on the southern border:

• It's good to see all the former First Ladies come out against this policy (Hillary Clinton, Laura Bush, Michelle Obama, Rosalynn Carter).  The current First Lady Melania Trump's statement was better than nothing, but could have been stronger.  But ... where are the former Presidents?  I'd like to see Obama give a speech about this, and George W. Bush and Bill Clinton as well.
• The agents themselves who are implementing this policy - separating children from their parents, lying to the children, as a means of separating them - are as much to blame as Trump and his lying minions.  Those agents are no better than Nazis who said they were just following orders.   Where is their humanity?  Without them, Trump's bluster would be just that, bluster without consequence.  I hope the next Democratic President fires each and every one of these agents.
• Where are the Republicans who, in the past, have shown a shred of decency on this issue?  Where is John McCain*, Jeff Flake, Ben Sass, Susan Collins?  Why don't they step up and vividly denounce this inhumane policy? Some have made statements, and some are better than others.  The time has come for every Republican with any compassion to come out with clear, unconditional statements calling for this heinous policy to end. *[McCain just tweeted the following at 7:30pm Eastern, "The administration’s current family separation policy is an affront to the decency of the American people, and contrary to principles and values upon which our nation was founded. The administration has the power to rescind this policy. It should do so now." Excellent - exactly!]
• Much has been said by Trump and his supporters about the Democrats made this law.  That's not true - as just about everyone knows, this is a policy, not a law, that Trump has chosen to initiate.  But even if it was a law - as our great philosophers have told us throughout the ages, there are moral imperatives that transcend the law, and should be followed when the law calls for something evil to happen.  Caring for our children, seeing that no harm, let alone indelible harm and pain befalls them, is among the most important moral imperatives in our human condition.
• Credit to most of the media for shining a spotlight on this awful state of affairs.  If ever it was clear that we need a free media system, unregulated by government, the baneful actions of our government are demonstrating this today.
• Psychologists accurately say that separation of children at such early ages (especially toddlers!) can cause enduring psycho-social damage to the children.  This is something that every parent, and everybody who was ever a child, which means everyone, should instantly understand.

Every American needs to step up and speak up and oppose this policy, in whatever way they can.  For what it's worth, I think it's the worst thing our government has ever done, domestically, in my lifetime.

Why the Arizona Immigration Law is Unconstitutional

There has been a lot of discussion of the unconstitutionality of the new Arizona Immigration Law, which would allow police to stop any person they may find "suspicious" - or have "reasonable suspicion" that the individual is not in this country legally - and ask for the person's immigration papers.   Jonathan Turley, for example, on last night's Countdown with Keith Olbermann, emphasized that the Arizona law trespasses on Federal immigration purview, and on those grounds could be found unconstitutional.  *Note added 28 July 2010:  Delighted that U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton blocked the unconstitutional "papers please" part of this law.

I certainly agree, but would like to focus on what I see as a more fundamental violation of the Constitution in this new law.   It violates the 14th Amendment to our Constitution, which begins

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The new Arizona law is intended to identify illegal aliens.   But on the basis of "reasonable suspicion," an officer could pull over and demand papers from an American citizen, simply because he or she looked like the officer's expectations of an illegal alien.  (*Note added 1 May 2010:  The same applies to the amended law - see discussion in comments below, and my podcast on this topic.)  More specifically, someone who has dark hair and a mustache (as I proudly do) would be more likely to be stopped by a cop in Arizona, under this law, than a clean shaven guy with blond hair and blue eyes.   That seems to me to be ipso facto a violation of the equal protection provision of the 14th Amendment.

Now, police stop people who may look like suspects all the time.  If there's a description of a serial killer, which unfortunately happens to look like me, I think it's entirely appropriate that I be stopped and questioned (hey, I watch Criminal Minds).   But that's a very specific situation, and unlike what the Arizona Immigration Law does, which singles out a whole class of people, who happen to look like whatever the Arizona police might envision an illegal alien to look like.

I hope this law is struck down as soon as possible, as the unconstitutional, un-American piece of state legislation it is.


10-min podcast discussion of this issue, with consideration of the amended law, and a response to Chris Matthews