Atlantic Monthly Contributors's Blog, page 1025

Some Ideas For a New 'Today' Show Plaza

The Today show plaza—long the place of concerts, hosts doing silly things, awkward chats—may be getting some sort of makeover. In his New York Times report about the show replacing its longtime director, Brian Stelter quotes an unnamed executive as saying "We’re rethinking the plaza experience." 

Yes, the struggling Today show is in for big changes—though as Stelter points out not personnel ones—including a new studio. The show will move to a temporary set in August, like they did in 2006, and will debut on their new one in the fall. 

But what does that mean for the plaza, which has been a staple of the show since 1994, where tourists routinely gather to which their mothers happy birthday on camera or see a celebrity in concert? We have some (ridiculous) ideas. 

Option 1: Get rid of the plaza Who needs it? Do we really need to hear Al Roker making small talk with a high school choir from Portland? Lock the anchors inside. 

Option 2: Put in seats Ticket it. Make it a destination like a talk show. 

Option 3: Turn it into a petting zoo In 1953 the show brought on a chimpanzee to help its status with sponsors. Everyone loves animals. A petting zoo would be the perfect way to help the ratings. 

Option 4: Move to Times Square This is all about competition with Good Morning America, right? Why not make that competition more direct. It can be like New Year's Eve. 

 Option 5: Make it a permanent obstacle course The plaza has often made for good entertainment when it's a venue for the hosts to do stupid things. Take for instance when the team ran a Tough Mudder course last year. Instate Kathie Lee and Hoda as permanent cheerleaders/commentators. Make Al wade through ice water to do the weather. Make Matt Lauer crawl through mud to interview a celebrity. Pure fun. 

Option 6: Forbid any one from attending except Lenny The longtime fan is the best part of the plaza anyway.

       

'Jurrasic Park 4' Is Back On

Today in show business news: Jurassic Park 4 lives again, Pacific Rim may live again too, and Liv Tyler heads to TV.

Mr. Hammond, I think Jurassic Park 4 is back in business. The production was put on hold just last month, sparking rumors that the project was done for good, but now it appears to be back on. Movie site Coming Soon says that Universal is now planning to release the film sometime in 2015, in 3D. Colin Trevorrow is still attached as director, and the film is still a prequel about how the dinosaurs met in college. Looking forward to it! [Coming Soon]

Elsewhere in the world of big things lumbering around, the robot vs. monster actioner Pacific Rim, which comes out next month, will get a sequel if Guillermo del Toro has anything to say about it. He's got plans for a followup and is working on a pitch, so I guess he just spoiled the fact that all of the monsters aren't definitively killed by the end of the first one. Thanks a lot, Guillermo. This is like the time I accidentally told my friend the entire ending of Pan's Labyrinth because I'd had a couple glasses of wine and felt talkative. Spoilers stink! And now Guillermo himself has given us a big one. They don't kill all the monsters beyond the shadow of a doubt at the end of Pacific Rim. Unless the sequel is about different monsters, or del Toro meant prequel and it's about how the monsters met in college. But if it's neither of those things, then yeah. All the monsters aren't dead. [Deadline]

This is a funny news story. Because on the one hand whatever sweaty, dystopian novel-obsessed teen you know (hopefully they are your teen or a sibling or friend's teen, otherwise you really shouldn't know any teens) will be very excited to hear that the all-important role of Chancellor Ava Paige in the movie adaptation of The Maze Runner has been cast. But on the other hand, the person cast is Patricia Clarkson and, while she is great, I'm just not sure how many teens, sweaty or not, really care about Patricia Clarkson. Maybe get the teen to watch this and then give them the news. They might be more excited that way. But only do that if you know the teen. Don't just show some random teen that video. That wouldn't end well I don't think. [Entertainment Weekly]

Liv Tyler has been cast as the lady lead in the big Damon Lindelof HBO pilot The Leftovers. That's the one based on the Tom Perrotta novel about the post-Rapture world. Tyler will play "a young woman on the verge of getting married, but needing an escape." She joins co-lead Justin Theroux along with Christopher Eccleston, Compliance standout Ann Dowd, and recent Tony nominee Carrie Coon. This is nice for Liv Tyler! She's been sorta off the radar for a bit, huh? Well here she is now, getting in on the prestige TV game. I mean, potentially. This is just a pilot, remember. HBO hasn't agreed to anything. But come on, it's gotta go to series, doesn't it? This is a hot literary property with big names involved. They'd never pass on something like that. I mean, not twice, anyway. [Deadline]

Here is a new international trailer for the upcoming YA fantasy adventure thing The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones. We don't see anything all that new, but for you Mortal Instruments obsessives out there, this will probably excite in some way. That teen, the one who likes Maze Runner, they'll be excited about it probably. Show the teen. Always show the teen.

Video: Exclusive Trailer: The Mortal Instruments

       

China's Pervert Repellant Stockings Might Be the Greatest Joke Weibo Ever Played

[image error]The results are undeniable. These stockings, which are made to look like a pair of very hairy legs, induce groans, nausea, and physical discomfort and according to Weibo they're the best deterrent to cat calls and objectification that the country has to offer. There's one problem if you want a pair though—they're probably an elaborate joke. 

Make no mistake, upon showing the image of said stockings to The Atlantic Wire staff, 92 percent of the staffers reeled in horror. And that was pretty much is in step with reactions on Weibo, where pictures of the purported stockings were first posted, with the tag "essential for all young girls going out"—basically they're billed as pervert repellents and deterrents to cat calls and whistles from male onlookers, something that's isn't just common in China. And it's one of the micro-blogging site's top posts. "Essential for the subway," one user noted, while another added:

This will not only prevent against perverts, it’ll definitely also result in preventing handsome guys from approaching you. When things go to the extreme, they can only go the opposite direction!!!

The blog, ChinaSmack has a collection of more responses.

It's all sort of smart, right? But there's a problem (besides the basic concept that this doesn't help anyone who wears pants): it's unclear whether you can buy them. The Weibo post doesn't say where you can purchase them, and Mashable notes that it's unclear whether they're for sale. The Telegraph's Katy Brand notes (sarcastically) that she's managed to purchase them. "I have ordered a dozen pairs. It is to be my new summer look," Brand writes, but it's more of a point to rail against women's magazines and their summer fashion spreads. 

And the other thing: it's really hot and humid in spots like Beijing and Shanghai right now. Wearing these tights would be uncomfortable and really warm and defeat some of the intent of wearing a skirt or dress. 

What it adds up to is that these wonderful pervert repellents are probably not for sale, taking some of the air out of the joke. If the hairy stockings are a hoax, then they wouldn't go into the Chinese DIY invention hall of fame which includes nylon ski masks to prevent sunburn. And that no one was really driven to create a pair of ugly stockings to get their neighborhood lech to stop leering, could possibly mean that (hopefully) the Chinese cat-calling hasn't the point of terrible no return (yet). If some one was indeed driven to creating hairy stockings and making huge piles of money from them, it'd be both sad and darkly humorous. 

[image error]So far, the closest thing we have for people interested in the hairy-leg stockings are these vintage beasts from J.Crew (right). Gawker found them in 2010 and it turns out their hirsute appearance was completely accidental. They were actually made of lace and were supposed to be "an essential ingredient in the season's textural mashup." There's also this Chewbacca Halloween costume, but then again, that might attract a whole different kind of admirer.

       

If There's a War on Men, Who's Winning Exactly?

Wall Street Journal columnist James Taranto is not a rape apologist. He's not a woman hater. He only attacks sexual assault victims to help other women. In a Tuesday column, Taranto says that the effort to change how sexual assault is prosecuted in the military is tantamount to "a war on men" and "shows signs of becoming an effort to criminalize male sexuality." Taranto looks at one of two cases highlighted by Sen. Claire McCaskill in which a military commander overturned a jury's conviction in a sexual assault case because the commander found the accused to be more believable than the accuser. He agrees with the commander. "The presumption that reckless men are criminals while reckless women are victims makes a mockery of any notion that the sexes are equal," he writes. He calls McCaskill "histrionic" for describing the accuser as a "survivor." This is why rapes are underreported — because men will call them liars. Often in creepy ways.

In the case in question, a female second lieutenant in the Air Force said that in October 2009, she was sitting in the back seat of a car with Capt. Matthew Herrera. All but the driver had been drinking, and the woman said she fell asleep, and then awoke to find Herrera had opened her pants and was touching her genitals. Herrera said she undid her own pants and showed she consented to his touching by putting her head on his shoulder. Taranto points out that Herrera and the accused exchanged 116 text messages, 51 sent by the accuser, though we don't know what they said. Herrera was convicted by a jury of five higher-ranking Air Force officers of aggravated sexual assault, and sentenced to 60 days in prison, loss of pay, and discharge. Herrera asked Lt. Gen. Susan Helms for clemency. Helms did not watch the trial or speak to the accuser, and "Documents show that Helms’s legal adviser urged her to reject Herrera’s request," The Washington Post reports. But Helms lessened Herrera's conviction to an "indecent act," and he was discharged from the Air Force. 

Helms wrote a five-page memo justifying her decision, though it was not made public until McCaskill put a hold on her nomination to be vice commander of the Air Force Space Command. But the memo reveals that Helms did not think the woman was making it all up. "It is undoubtedly true that [the accuser’s] feelings of victimization are real and justifiable... However, Capt. Herrera’s conviction should not rest on [the accuser’s] view of her victimization, but on the law and convincing evidence."

Taranto says McCaskill's hold on Helms' nomination is a pity, because Helms is a feminist pioneer — an astronaut in a male-dominated field. In a Journal video, he says Helms, a woman, is perversely a victim of the war on men, of the feminist crusade for sexual equality, whatever that is. This is a common theme for him. Feminism is causing the hookup culture and women to leave college unhappy and unmarried, he argued in April, when they should "take advantage of the simultaneity of their own peak nubility and their presence among an abundance of suitable mates such as they are all but certain never to encounter again." In February 2012, Taranto wrote of birth control, "it is not implausible to think, as [Rick] Santorum does, that it has been harmful to women on balance." In April 2012, Taranto speculated that more and more men are afraid of sex, because women have total control over whether to have a kid, but if they do have it, men have the responsibility to provide for it financially. Thus, women are having trouble finding husbands, and "No amount of feminist happy talk about 'choice' or [Bill] Bennett-like bluster about 'manning up' is going to solve it."

As you can see common theme in Taranto's work is that women's lib hurts women. Here, for example, is a video starring Taranto titled "Opinion: How Women's Lib Hurts Women." The takeaway is: A good thing could have happened to women, but because feminists lost their grip on reality, a bad thing happened to women. Basically, they were asking for it.

       

A Canadian Mayor Resigns...

Can you guess which one? If you think it's the one embroiled in a violent crack cocaine scandal, you are wrong. It's the other major Canadian mayor making headlines recently. Interim Montreal mayor Michael Applebaum resigned one day after he was arrested at his Montreal home by UPAC, Quebec's anti-corruption police division. Applebaum is facing 14 charges of fraud against the government, breach of trust and conspiracy and municipal corruption, among other things, from his time as Montreal's Côte-des-Neiges–Notre-Dame-de-Grâce borough mayor. 

"Being mayor of Montreal is not something one can do while defending themselves against these accusations. This is why I am resigning as mayor of Montreal," Applebaum told reporters. His predecessor, Gérald Tremblay, resigned over corruption charges in November. Applebaum campaigned to city council that he would fight corruption. Seriously, you can't make this stuff up. 

Rob Ford, the Toronto mayor accused of smoking crack cocaine, unveiled an Ai Weiwei exhibit in Toronto on Tuesday afternoon. He's still in office. 

       

What We're Talking About When We Talk About Politico

Every few months, for reasons that only they can really know, Politico founders submit themselves to questioning from publications that not so secretly hate them. The latest is an interview by The New Republic's Isaac Chotiner (the same magazine that published a look at Politico's inner workings in 2009 under the headline "The Scoop Factory") of editor-in-chief John Harris and executive editor Jim VandeHei who suffer through 34 questions, nine of which were premised on the idea that Politico is an amoral morass of rapacity. For instance: "You say you 'cover' Washington. Does Politico consider itself merely an observer of Washington or a participant?" "But what is the larger mission, besides bringing this news to your niche audience?" "Do you want good government? To keep politicians honest? What?" "You don’t think there is any public calling to be perhaps boring if pensions are being stolen?" "If Washington, on a given day, is caught up in total nonsense, is there real value in covering total nonsense?" 

The Politico editors give a robust defense of covering nonsense. But it appears none of the parties actually wants to be involved in the interview:

TNR: OK, but what is Politico’s role specifically? 
Harris: We are edited for those who live in our world.

The anxiety of such Politico pieces, whether the principals submit to a grilling or not, all seem to be based on the same core thesis: Politico is a trivial b.s. factory sustained by cheap Internet tricks. What usually goes unstated is that the outlet resents whatever relevance Politico has out of jealousy or mere tedium of having to play along (or catch up). The traits we hate most in others are often the traits we see in ourselves. These articles hint at an uneasy recognition that Politico is just like us, only more shameless. Take, for example, this parenthetical from Gawker's Tom Scocca in February:

"This is an arguably dangerous development," The Politico explains.

(Here we pause to invoke the old and useful rule, promulgated by the columnist Alex Beam, that "arguably" is a synonym for "not.)

Or this observation, from Alex Pareene in The Baffler, on BuzzFeed, which is edited by Ben Smith, who became nationally prominent as a Politico blogger during the 2008 campaign, and is the more fashionable object of journalistic contempt (TNR is a little late to the Politico-hating game): 

“Did President Obama Just Make a Blowjob Joke?” went the headline, back in June. Experienced news consumers know to mentally add a “no” to the end of all headlines posed as yes-or-no questions, but this one was immune to any sort of reading as a traditional news article.

Only hardened purveyors of cheap Internet tricks would be so bothered by such a shameless use of cheap Internet tricks. Some media people see the news site as a place that reports on dumb trivial things and trades flattering coverage for access to information minutes before it goes out wide as a press release. But this is how the rest of the country sees all of media. Politico paranoia peaked in 2010, after Mark Leibovich called Mike Allen "The Man the White House Wakes Up To" in The New York Times Magazine. (Columbia Journalism Review's review of the article was headlined, "The Future? We Hope Not.") It had not quite ebbed in the summer of 2012 when the Huffington Post went "Inside the Cult" and found a newsroom likened "to The Hunger Games, in which young people fight to the death for the enjoyment of a privileged class." But the beach was nearly clear by that fall, when Politico picked a fight with The New York Times' Nate Silver over whether poll averages or gut instinct and anecdotes were a better predictor of who'd win the election. Silver won.

In the TNR interview, Harris said he doesn't read Silver's work, saying he "gets up on his high horse quite a lot."  Responding at Talking Points Memo, Silver said, "It's not that they are too 'insidery' per se, but that the perceptions of Beltway insiders, which Politico echoes and embraces, are not always very insightful or accurate. In other words, the conventional wisdom is often wrong, especially in Washington."

Leibovich explained how this conventional wisdom was created and promoted in 2010:

Political operatives I speak to tend to deploy the word “use” a lot in connection with Politico; as in, they “use” the publication to traffic certain stories they know they could not or would not get published elsewhere. I was also struck by how freely VandeHei threw out the word “market” in connection with how newsmakers and sources interacted with Politico. “If you want to move data or shape opinion,” VandeHei wrote to me by e-mail, “you market it through Mikey and Playbook, because those tens of thousands that matter most all read it and most feed it. Or you market it through someone else at Politico, which will make damn sure its audience of insiders and compulsives read it and blog about it; and that it gets linked around and talked about on TV programs.”

This does not seem unique to Politico. Think how well The New York Times worked for those selling the Iraq war a decade ago. At least Politico offers some transparency. Pareene, however, found the problem is not the transactional nature of Politico's coverage, but that Politico was getting so little out of the deal:

To call this craven performance a study in access journalism is an insult to the storied sycophantic practitioners of that low craft. Sure, echt-insiders like legendary New York Times columnist James Reston might lease out their bylines to war criminals like Henry Kissinger—but such ceremonial deference at least took place under some vague aura of a quid pro quo. Politico, by contrast, was in this instance publicly whoring itself out for no purpose beyond its all-too-palpable craving for a slightly more incremental monopoly on meaningless bits of information that even paid campaign flacks are apt to forget the day after they race through the overstimulated nervous system of the D.C. media.

At TNR, Chotiner writes, "The dominant mode of Washington journalism tends to both reflect and entrench the values of its era... The Washington of today runs at warp-speed and hums with sound bites, and the current head of the pack, Politico, has only made it go faster." Here is a link to a TNR slideshow.

       

House Republicans Won't Back Down From Their New Restrictive Abortion Bill

The conservative push in the House to pass a restrictive abortion bill ticked up one more level on the futility meter today as the President officially indicated his intention to veto the measure, should it reach his desk. The bill, which would ban almost all abortions at 20 weeks based on a scientifically contested assertion that fetuses feel pain at that stage, will go to the House floor for debate tomorrow. 

This bill, as we've explained before, is an attempt to parlay public outrage over the horrible narrative of the Kermit Gosnell trial into enough momentum to pass a law that would challenge the current precedent governing abortion laws nationwide: via a handful of Supreme Court decisions, that precedent guarantees a woman's right to have an abortion so long as the fetus is not "viable," generally understood to be around 24 weeks. If the bill — otherwise known as H.R. 1797 or the "Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act" — were to become law, it'd lead to a Supreme Court challenge. This is exactly the criticism levied at the bill by the statement on the intended veto: 

"This bill is a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade and shows contempt for women's health and rights, the role doctors play in their patients' health care decisions, and the Constitution." 

But for anti-abortion activists, directly challenging Roe v. Wade is kind of the whole point. A handful of states are working on or have passed bills similar to H.R. 1797. A 20-week abortion ban in H.R. 1797 bill sponsor Rep. Trent Franks's home state of Arizona, for example, was recently struck down by a federal court. But this bill will not become law, so this endgame isn't possible, this time. Why are the Republicans, then, even bothering? 

Just months ago, the GOP released a post-election autopsy that recommended all sorts of re-evaluations of party stances, including on social issues like abortion and gay marriage. The autopsy, among other things, was an attempt to bring the more conservative members of the party back into the establishment fold. The New York Times argued that the recent, bold nationwide push to get an abortion bill through to the Supreme Court demonstrates that a pull back on social issues just isn't realistically going to make it on the agenda, especially at the state level. Salon noted, for example, that there's a lot of money in play on social issues that could very well continue to make abortion a key issue for some Republicans. 

And while a major motivation behind the House's insistence that this bill, which will not become law, is indeed about appeasing the conservative base, there's something else going on here, too. The Gosnell trial didn't become a rallying cry for anti-abortion activists and legislators because it confirmed what they already knew. They took it up because it, they thought, could change their opponent's minds. It's similar to a notion promoted by some Evangelical Christians, that of a Biblical "faith of a mustard seed" — in other words, that planting an idea, however so small, can later lead to a deeper commitment or conversion. It's why street preachers will hand you pamphlets with Bible verses on them: just seeing the words of the Bible, they believe, could trigger a series of events that make the reader convert. Earlier this year, Paul Ryan directly expressed this idea by arguing that "[anti-abortion activists] need to work with people who consider themselves pro-choice, because our task isn't to purge our ranks. It's to grow them." That's in part, why the internal party report's recommendation that, in order to reach more Americans, the party back off of more contentious issues is falling on deaf ears. Some legislators still hope that never stopping on their quest to pass restrictive, unconstitutional abortion bills might convert the pro-choice movement, or at least the apathetic, to their side. And when this bill, eventually, fails, there's always next time. 

       

Neil Patrick Harris's Next Big Move

Today show business news: Doogie is donning a wig on the White Way, the Boy Meets World update is a go, and there will be many more Amazing Spider-Man movies. Also: Gosling.

When his long-running, surprise-hit sitcom How I Met Your Mother ends this upcoming season, four-time Tonys host Neil Patrick Harris will finally get his chance to return to the proper Broadway stage. So what's he doing, some screwball comedy? A musical farce? A talky drama by Richard Greenberg or something? Well, no. He's doing Hedwig and the Angry Inch. As in he'll be playing the transgender rock singer from Berlin created by downtown theater artist and director John Cameron Mitchell. Famously, brilliantly created by John Cameron Mitchell, I should mention. So... that is ambitious, for Neil Patrick Harris! To be fair, he did play the Emcee in Cabaret to some acclaim, but that was ten years ago, before there was all this expectation about Neil Patrick Harris. Now there's this scrutiny and, I dunno, those are big glittery boots to fill. Can we really see him singing this effectively? Maybe, maybe not. But we'll find out soon enough either way! In related news, can't wait for Josh Radnor's production of Woyzeck! [New York Times]

Well, it's official. The Disney Channel has ordered the Boy Meets World update Girl Meets World to series, which is about Corey and Topanga having a kid and living in New York City. Gone is the blue-ish collar Philadelphia setting, they're in Manhattan now. Corey is his daughter Riley's (ugh, Riley) history teacher while Topanga, um, "owns a trendy afterschool hangout that specializes in pudding." She peddles pudding to children. Great. This is a Disney Channel show, may I remind you, so the premise was always going to be ridiculous. Riley has a best friend named Maya who I guess is the Shawn of this show. Weird old vizier Mr. Feeny is said to be making some kind of return, but in what capacity we don't know. Maybe Riley and Maya learn an important lesson about death? That seems like it could be distinctly likely. Anyway, enjoy the show, kids who are in no way old enough to even remotely remember the original! [Deadline]

Sony has announced the release dates for the third and fourth Amazing Spider-Man movies. But wait, you might say, the second one hasn't even come out yet! Which is true, not until next summer, but the first one was a big enough hit that Sony didn't want to wait. So they've gone ahead and scheduled movies three and four, which will be released on June 10, 2016 and May 4, 2018, respectively. Eesh. 2018?? We're all going to be so old. Kids starting eighth grade this fall will be starting college. Not to mention, Andrew Garfield (and, ahem, some others of us) will be 35 (or almost 35, in his case). That's a lot of time! But I guess they feel confident enough in the franchise to plan ahead. And to make us all existentially horrified by the horrible, inevitable passing of time. [Entertainment Weekly]

Ryan Gosling has found the lead for his directorial debut movie How to Catch a Monster. He's tapped young Scottish actor Iain De Caestecker, the glory of Glasgow, to play the son of Christina Hendricks's character, and "a loner with an active imagination who is the catalyst for this film." Aha. That's a big deal for the lad. He also recently landed a series regular role on ABC's big S.H.I.E.L.D. show. Deadline says he booked that gig on his very first trip to Los Angeles! Strange for such a homely young man to have so much sudden success. It's a strange business, though. Odd things happen. [Deadline]

Jennifer Lopez has signed on to be one of the stars of The 33, based on the real-life Chilean mining disaster/miracle. She'll star alongside Antonio Banderas and Rodrigo Santoro as miners, and Martin Sheen as one of the miners' fathers. But who will Lopez play? It does not say. A miner? No, I don't think she will be a miner. That's not exactly how Chile, or really mining in general, works. There are some women in mining, but not many. Especially not in Chile. So, she's probably playing someone else. My question at this point: Will this movie be in Spanish? It's a Spanish-speaking director and scriptwriting team, so who knows. That would be interesting. Either way, this is a fascinating story that could make for a good movie. Or a corny movie. Who knows at this point? Much like being in a mine, we're in the dark. Haha, mine jokes. [The Hollywood Reporter]

       

The Prisoners at Guantanamo, by the Numbers

In April, The New York Times' Charles Savage asked the government to release a list of the people still detained at the government's prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. He asked the Department of Defense, but the proper division for the response was the Department of Justice. Today it responded, providing one of the first complete looks at who the United States is holding, and what it plans to do with them. In short, they're heavily Yemeni and, even if Guantanamo is closed, most will remain in custody.

We took the government's data and made it easier to parse the data. (If you're curious, the entire Freedom of Information Act response from the government is at the bottom of this page.) Doing so allowed us to map the national origins of each detainee, as below.

Nearly 100 of the 240 detainees are originally from Yemen, which makes their status more complex than others. The next most-common country of origin is Afghanistan, followed by Saudi Arabia and Chad. Interestingly, one data point that probably jumped out at you — the detainee from Canada — shows that the document doesn't only include current detainees. The Canadian is Omar Khadr, a teenager who accepted a plea deal and is currently serving a sentence in a Canadian prison.

Khadr's status is listed in the document as "referred for prosecution" — a status he shares with 17 other prisoners. Other statuses for detainees include:

"Continued detention pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (2001)" — in some cases, allowing for eventual detention in the United States. That determination, which allows for indefinite detention was made explicit by Obama in 2011. "Transfer outside the United States to a country that will implement appropriate security measures." "Transfer or release outside the United States."

A large number of detainees of Yemeni origin have a modified version of the AUMF designation, stating that, given the security situation in their home country, they will either be returned there once Guantanamo closes, or moved to detention in the United States. During his national security speech last month, Obama lifted the moratorium on returning Yemeni prisoners to that country, meaning the 30 identified in this way will likely be returned.

The various designations break down as follows:

In a number of cases, the eventual secured location of the detainee isn't named. In some cases, it's redacted. In a few cases, specific destination countries are named, usually the detainee's country of origin. In one case, that of detainees from Chad, each and every prisoner is flagged either for release outside the United States or transfer to the US.

One data point not mentioned in the Department of Justice release is one that got a great deal of attention earlier this month. The Washington Post and others reported that 41 of the current detainees are on hunger strike. As a percentage of the 240 listed detainees, that's about one-sixth — though the number of detainees actually at Guantanamo is lower.

It's not clear if the FOIA response (which, again, is below) includes all relevant information. The respondent, Vanessa R. Brinkmann of the Initial Request Staff, indicates that some data may be excluded via existing Congressional action. What is included, though, provides a sweeping picture of a flawed, unwanted system that America seems unable to effectively undo.

Photo: An anti-Guantanamo protest in Yemen. (Reuters)

       

Why Is Vice Hiding Its Kim Jong-un Interview?

Vice editor Shane Smith told a busy Charlie Rose that his "basketball diplomacy" trip included what would be an extremely exclusive interview with the Mein Kampf-loving, now almost actually diplomatic North Korean leader Kim Jong-un in preparation for Friday's big Dennis Rodman-starring season finale of Vice's big HBO show. But it didn't make the cut. Which makes little to no sense — which, when you think about it, is kind of the Vice way.

In an appearance on Rose's show on May 24, Smith said the final episode of Vice would include an interview with the North Korean leader. Smith didn't give any details about what the supreme leader said, but he confirmed that a documentary is finished, that he and his team "have the interview," and that they "show" Kim in the documentary. But when the episode finally aired late last week, it looks like the Vice cameras had to be shut off while they had lunch with the young leader. All the juicy bits that Smith teased to Rose were... missing. There was no footage of him speaking with Vice's correspondants at all.

Two conclusions could be drawn drawn here: 1) Vice is sitting on an interview with Jong-Un for some reason, possibly for a non-HBO Vice documentary for which the brand has become so notorious; or 2) Smith misled Rose about having an "interview" to trump up the HBO finale, which had already been trumped up to death with the whole Vice-orchestrated Rodman trip. Both seem possible. Smith confirms that Vice spoke with Kim, which is true. They presumably spoke over lunch while the cameras were off, in an elaborate meal after Rodman and Kim watched that basketball game together. And Smith confirms Kim is shown in their footage, which is also true of Friday's HBO episode — Kim is on camera doing various strange things throughout the episode. But there's never a clear-cut confirmation; Smith lets Rose (and the viewer) believe what they want to believe. 

Maybe they do have an interview. Maybe Kim Jong-un's comments were just a little too weird, a little too far out of left field, a little too Hitler-esque for the State Department. Vice did draw  attention from Foggy Bottom with their trip, after all, and The New York Times reported that Rodman, "the only American to have dealt with him," was debriefed by the FBI. And, today, a report accused Kim of handing out copies of Hitler's Mein Kampf, the memoir he wrote in prison, to some of his senior officials. 

But who knows if that's really true. North Korea is on a make-up tour with the world powers it has antagonized all year. After offering to participate in nuclear proliferation talks with the U.S. over the weekend, North Korea announced it would be sending an envoy to China for a "strategic dialogue" later this week. We just might not have the sit-down interview the world's been waiting for. Guess we'll have to settle for President Obama and Charlie Rose instead.