The Yin Blog

80s music still packs a wallop on today's TV shows (Fringe)

For a variety of reasons, I'm behind on TV shows . . . still have the premieres of ABC's "Last Resort," "Once Upon A Time," and "Scandal" to get to. But I did watch CBS's modern day Sherlock Holmes procedural "Elementary" (which I'll blog about later) and "Person of Interest" (might or might not say something about this), and of course, "Survivor."

But I also caught the opening of the last season of Fox's "Fringe," which has gone from the twisty parallel universe mythology to what looks to be a straightforward future shock battle between our intrepid heroes and the creepy Observers in 2036.

I won't give anything big away about the episode (and with "Fringe," unless you've been following closely along, it wouldn't make sense anyway), but I'll say that the episode closes with a large chunk of the early 1980s band Yaz's "Only You." It's one of those perfect fits between song and scene -- I haven't heard this song in years, but I instantly remembered the feelings of poignancy that it once evoked. Singer Alison Moyet's voice was so haunting and full of loss.

Granted, I don't listen much to current music (other than Kelly Clarkson or Taylor Swift), but my sense is that pop music is an area, unlike television, where the 1980s (and to a lesser extent, the 1990s) still rule supreme over today.

The Libya attack and 9/11 -- ignored warnings?

I occasionally see snarky references from (liberal) friends to the effect that the Bush Administration ignored warnings during the summer of 2001 that al Qaeda was going to attack the U.S. Usually, this is a reference to an August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing, in which the CIA reported:

Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate bin Laden since 1997 has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the US. Bin Laden implied in U.S. television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and "bring the fighting to America."

***

Al Qaeda members -- including some who are U.S. citizens -- have resided in or traveled to the U.S. for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure that could aid attacks.

Two al-Qaeda members found guilty in the conspiracy to bomb our embassies in East Africa were U.S. citizens, and a senior EIJ member lived in California in the mid-1990s.

A clandestine source said in 1998 that a bin Laden cell in New York was recruiting Muslim-American youth for attacks.

We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a ---- service in 1998 saying that Bin Laden wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Sheikh" Omar Abdel Rahman and other U.S.-held extremists.

Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.

The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full-field investigations throughout the U.S. that it considers bin Laden-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group or bin Laden supporters was in the U.S. planning attacks with explosives.

Left unsaid in these snarky criticisms is what exactly the Bush Administration should have done given what was known at the time. There's no actionable intelligence about any specific target. Should we have locked down all commercial aircraft? And the report alleges that Muslim-American youths are being recruited for attacks, but with no specifics, not even a designated part of the country. It's hard to believe that Bush critics would actually want action of the sort depicted in the movie "The Siege," where the US government rounds up Arab-Americans (and non-Americans) in New York to be detained in concentration camps. . . .

Anyway, the Independent (UK) has this explosive report about the killing in Libya of US Ambassador Chris Stevens:

According to senior diplomatic sources, the US State Department had credible information 48 hours before mobs charged the consulate in Benghazi, and the embassy in Cairo, that American missions may be targeted, but no warnings were given for diplomats to go on high alert and "lockdown", under which movement is severely restricted.

Now, I'll grant that "senior diplomatic sources" may not be the equivalent of a CIA briefing item. They may be disgruntled sources.

On the other hand, if the report is true, the quality of the warning seems much better than that in the Aug. 6 PDB. Rather than having to defend the entire US commercial air system, as well as federal buildings in New York, as well as targets of "other attacks" (talk about CYA!), the Independent report identifies a specific class of targets: our embassies.

I should say, just as I find it unfair to blame the Bush Administration in retrospect for not acting (how?) on the Aug. 6 PDB, I think it would be unfair at this point, without knowing more about the alleged warning, to blame the Obama Administration. After all, who knows how often there may be warnings of this sort, making it hard to separate the wheat from the chaff.

But . . . if you're going to blame President Bush for not acting on the Aug. 6 PDB, I don't see how you can not also blame President Obama for not acting on this warning, unless you think the warning was never made.

UPDATE: Politico reports:

Shawn Turner, spokesman for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, emailed: “This is absolutely wrong. We are not aware of any actionable intelligence indicating that an attack on the U.S. Mission in Benghazi was planned or imminent.”

This is interesting, if you focus on the statement that there was no "actionable intelligence." It's possible that there was a rumor or generalized warning that we might be attacked, but nothing that you could act on -- in other words, something much like the Aug. 6 PDB.

Boy do I miss "24"

Yes, Fox's "24" was totally implausible, and it definitely had its lame seasons (6, anyone?). But I still miss the intense, addictive plotting and Kiefer Sutherland's perfect portrayal of Jack Bauer. I miss it so much that I'll even watch an ad that's a parody of it:

Paul Ryan's marathon lie/fib/mistake

Paul Ryan is a pretty fit dude, but his best marathon time is just over 4 hours, not just under 3 hours, as he claimed on a radio show, only to correct his misstatement later. A number of my Facebook friends have linked to the New Yorker article that I've linked to, with comments ranging from "What a SCUMBAG" to "Paul Ryan even lies about his marathon times. At least he's consistent."

First of all, speaking as a hardcore runner, I find it pretty hard to believe that Ryan just misremembered his finishing time, especially when he ran only one marathon. Misremembering your time as 2:50ish instead of 4:00ish is sort of like if I told people my 5K PR time is 16:00 instead of 21:27 (shaving ~25% off the time). 21:27 is pretty decent for local races, but it's nothing special. 16:00 isn't Olympic caliber, but it's damn fast.

Okay, so assuming he lied, is he a scumbag? Does the fact that he lied about his marathon time predict or demonstrate anything about his performance as a politician?

I don't know, but it seems to me that for those who believe that he is a scumbag, or that he's inherently untrustworthy as a politician, I'm curious whether they held the same view of President Clinton as a result of his lies about his sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky.

After all, both could be said to have lied about "personal matters" -- that being Clinton's primary defense. But now consider the differences:

(1) Clinton's lie hurt someone else's reputation: Lewinsky. She may have been the aggressor in pursuing the relationship, but she was not lying about it, and she was not a deluded stalker. (I mean, she may have stalked him as prey initially, but she caught her prey.) Ryan's lie, on the other hand, did not harm anyone else.

(2) Clinton's lie was not solely a private matter, as it ultimately came about in a civil lawsuit. One can argue that the lawsuit was politically motivated (whatever that means), but there is no "my litigation adversary has bad motives" exception to allow you to give false evidence. If there were, defendants in employment lawsuits would always claim the right to lie because their opponents were financially motivated. One can also argue that the Lewinsky affair was consensual and thus not relevant to a sexual harassment lawsuit (a fairly persuasive argument, to me) -- but the district judge overruled this objection. There is no "I disagree with the judge's ruling" right to lie in civil litigation. Ryan's lie has nothing to do with any lawsuit or any other matter, legal or otherwise.

(3) Clinton's lie was, at times, under oath.

Now, I should say that I don't think politicians -- particularly Presidents -- should always feel obligated to tell the truth. President Carter dissembled when, on the eve of Operation Eagle Claw (the Iran hostage rescue mission), he was asked by Senator Byrd whether the U.S. was going to take any military action against Iran. Carter said that before mining the harbor or bombing Tehran, he would consult Congress. Technically true (he didn't lay mines or drop bombs) but very misleading. Yet, given the overriding need for mission secrecy, this lie seems to me not only acceptable but most likely called for.

But those are lies made for the perceived benefit of the nation, not for the individual politician's reputation or image. Both Clinton's and Ryan's lies were made with the apparent intent to benefit themselves, not the country. They are a similar species in that sense. But on the three key dimensions I identified above, Clinton's were worse.

To be clear, I don't mean to suggest that "OMG Clinton lied, impeach him, remove him from office!!!" is called for. Not do I mean that Ryan's lie is aboslutely irrelevant. As a runner, I certainly view it as a negative. And one could acknowledge that Clinton's lie was bad without seeing it as overriding everything else that one might admire about his accomplishments. My point is just that people who are out to denounce Paul Ryan as a liar, but who attempted to excuse Clinton's lie (as opposed to placing it in some kind of balance against his positives), should perhaps reevaluate their previous lack of outrage.