Atlantic Monthly Contributors's Blog, page 1035

iOS 7, iRadio, and New MacBooks: What to Expect at Apple's WWDC

The banners have started going up in preparation for Monday's World Wide Developer's Conference, meaning it's time to decipher what they mean with regards to goodies Apple will announce at the show. Like WWDC's before it, this one will likely introduce the world to a brand new iPhone operating system, a new Mac OS and possibly new hardware. It's a very exciting time of year for Apple fanboys everywhere. Here's a rundown of what announcements to expect out of the conference in just a few days. 

Flat iOS 7

These banners pretty much confirm we will see the dawn of iOS 7:

[image error]

The seven, of course, indicates the coming of that new "flatter" operating system. For what exactly that means head here and here for background reading. Or just look at that banner design last year and all that shiny type:  

[image error]

We shouldn't read too much into banner designs, but practically, those two banners represent the supposed shift in Apple's thinking. As for release date, rumors had said the software wouldn't be ready for release by WWDC and phone users would have to wait for a new iPhone announcement in the late summer or early fall. 

New Macbooks

The light-as-air computers will get makeovers on the inside only. 9to5Mac's sources say that the computers will retain their looks but get better Intel Haswell chips, faster WiFi, and dual microphones, which are good for FaceTime chats and stuff, according to this video. In addition, these sources say the Macbook Pro with Retina Display will slim down and get a refresh, too. Though that rumor sounds a little less likely than the new MacBook Airs. It sounds like all these new products will come in with better parts at the line's current prices:

[image error]

iRadio

Very legitimate rumors say Apple's Pandora competitor is nearly a done deal, making WWDC the perfect time for its debut. In fact, just today AllthingsD's Peter Kafka reported that Apple had signed Sony, the last of three major music labels: Warner Music Group, Sony, and Universal. These deals, or the lack thereof over how much money to pay companies per song, had stalled the service completely. But now that that's all squared off Apple can announce the service — and that's probably all we'll get come Monday. It's not likely that we will get to use iRadio right then, but at least Apple will let developers know it's on the way.

The service will work more like Pandora than Spotify, relying on similar technology to Genius to surface random songs based on a genre, band, or song. 

A New OSX Animal

Along with the new iOS, Apple will likely introduce an upgrade to the Mac operating system. Per usual, the name will follow the animal pattern, replacing the current Mountain Lion model. More banner reading of this image with an X (for OSX) on it has led some to guess Sea Lion is next in line, which, while a very adorable thought, would be the end of only using kinds of feline animals (Tiger, Lion, Jaguar, Leopard, etc.) for the last 12 years. Though some have suggested that Apple was running out of cats.

[image error]

As for the look, OSX will not include the same flat design as the phone. (Computers aren't really a company priority anymore for this good reason.) It will have some features for "power users," like changes to finder, and multi-screen capabilities, according to 9to5Mac. The OS might get that same new notification center that iOS is reportedly getting, too. 

Like all things Apple, these rumors should be taken as no more than that. (Though that seven is pretty convincing on the phone software front.) For the real news we'll have to wait until Monday's event. Check back here for full coverage. 

       

'Walking Dead' Is Getting Scarier Zombies

Today in showbiz news: Changes are coming to The Walking Dead, ABC orders a funny-sounding new show, and The Purge is already a hit.

According to an Entertainment Weekly interview with Walking Dead actor Norman Reedus (he plays The Arrowman, or whatever his name is), the fourth season of the show will somehow feature scarier zombies than we've had before. He told EW, "They’ve introduced a way to make the zombies scary again. They’re terrifying. The new threat is just unreal." Hm. So... the zombies evolve? Or someone straps knives to them or something? They all start voting for Ron Paul? Exactly how are they scarier?? Might it just, be, sigh that they figure out how to run? I mean isn't that how zombies are modified these days? The World War Z movie has fast zombies while the book didn't. The original Dawn of the Dead had slow zombs but the remake had running ghouls. Maybe that familiar evolution happens within Walking Dead's own story. I mean they'd have to change the title to The Running Dead, of course, but that's OK. I'm not a fan of the fast zombie in general — exceptions being the DotD remake and 28 Days Later — but if they must do it, so be it. It'd be better than having the zombies learn how to talk or use tools, like in Land of the Dead. I'd take running over either of those things. Anyway, start theorizing, Deadheads! [Entertainment Weekly]

ABC has just picked up a new series for next TV season. They've ordered thirteen episodes, straight to series, of a show called The Black Box, about "a famed neuroscientist who seems to have it all, with a job at the Center for Neurological Research and Treatment (otherwise known as The Cube), but struggles with mental illness." Wait. Wasn't that the exact plot of Do No Harm last season? I mean, not exact exact, but pretty darn close? Oh well. If it's broke, do it again. That's the old saying, right? One more thing about this show: It's called The Black Box. And the lead character's name is Elizabeth... Black. So. Um. That title. Sort of. Suggests. Something... I'm not... sure? they? want? it? to? Mayyybe? Hmm? What do you think? The Black Box. Elizabeth Black. It's just... I dunno. [The Hollywood Reporter]

Meanwhile Showtime is developing a drama series about trucking. As in,[image error] 10-4 good buddy. It's called Heartland Trucking and is from a guy who writes for Longmire. Though, the funny thing about the way the Deadline post is formatted is that it initially looks like Showtime's trucking show was created by Walt Whitman. It wasn't. But if it was, that would be amazing. I'd see any Walt Whitman series. Leaves of Grass would be the obvious choice, but anything really. Someone get on that. Someone go back in time, explain to Walt Whitman what television is, and then have him create a premium cable series. It won't be that hard. I mean he'll probably scream for a long time when you tell him who you are and what you want, he may even try to run away or call the police, but after that, I'm sure he'll be cracking stories in no time. [Deadline]

The Purge, the new movie about how it seems like a good idea in 2022 to let everyone commit any crime they want without repercussions for twelve hours every year, has already made back its budget. And it just opened today. See, there were late shows last night that pulled in $3.4 million across the land, and the movie only cost $3 million to make, so that's that! Well done, everyone. You can all go home and relax. Especially you, Ethan Hawke. What do you think Ethan Hawke gets paid on a $3 million movie? Or does he just get some of the profits? Who knows! Well, Ethan Hawke knows. His accountant knows. OK, lots of people know. Anyway, the point is this silly sounding movie is already doing well. How about that. [The Wrap]

       

Jose Canseco Will Not Be Charged with Rape

The brief investigation against Jose Canseco for allegations of rape is over. According to Las Vegas's Fox 5 station, the case was closed on Friday and Canseco will not be charged with a crime. The former baseball player was accused of sexual assault on May 22 by a woman whose name, picture, and other identifying details Canseco immediately plastered on his Twitter feed, to which more than 515,000 users subscribe, sparking an uproar over his behavior as documented by the Wire's Alexander Abad-Santos. 

Criticism of Canseco focused on his willingness to vilify his accuser in the public forum of Twitter, using his massive follower account to garner support for his innocence. In a series of tweets, Canseco dared his accuser to submit to a polygraph test alongside him. In subsequent tweets he accused the woman of lying, and suggested that she was following the orders of other individuals intent on ruining him.

Will this be the end of this episode? It's tough to say. Hours after he was cleared by Las Vegas law enforcement officials, Canseco announced his offer to sell the results of his polygraph test, which he underwent in Texas on May 25, for an undisclosed price.

Polygraph results up for sale with the true detailed story of what happened that night.

— Jose Canseco (@JoseCanseco) June 7, 2013

Canseco has hinted, furthermore, that he may seek counter-charges against his accuser. He told TMZ late last month that he "will try to find out, as a victim that I am ... what I can do, pressing charges against [his accuser]. Because this should not be allowed. Any woman could come up the street and file rape charges against an individual with no evidence. ... It's completely unjust."

       

Rush Limbaugh Is Pretty Sure This Time That Obama's Leading a Coup D'Etat

There is a split among conservatives between those who think the NSA's collection of data about every phone call in America is an important counterterrorism tool, and those who think President Obama is, as usual, trampling on the constitution and the flag and the Founding Fathers. But Rush Limbaugh takes it one step further. He says Obama is leading a coup d'etat. And this time it's for real. 

On Friday, Limbaugh added up the evidence -- the IRS targeting of conservatives, plus Fast and Furious and Obamacare, and now the NSA. "The evidence of the totalitarian nature or the authoritarian nature of this administration is on display undeniably every day," he said. What does it add up to? "Herbert Meyer," -- a blogger at American Thinker -- "asserted that essentially what's taking place in the United States right now is a coup, not a violent coup, and not a [militaristic] coup, but nevertheless a takeover of a government, and it's being done by the Obama administration." Limbaugh emphatically agrees:

He referred to it as a coup. I don't know if he used the word "peaceful," but clearly there's a coup d'etat going. You know it and I know it. This is what animates us. This is why the Tea Party exists. This country was founded on certain concepts, principles, beliefs -- and they're under assault. Chief among them under assault is the right to privacy, and that's what all this is about. So in the midst of this coup d'etat... I happen to like that formulation.

You know how we know Limbaugh likes that formulation? Because he's said Obama has been leading a coup so many times. 

February 26, 2009 : "This is not even about politics anymore, folks. This is really not even about politics. I'm going to have to come up with a way of explaining that so you understand what I mean. This is not about politics. It's a political coup, maybe, if you want to look at it that way." September 23, 2009 : "I did refer to this as a coup, a bloodless coup. He has delivered the United States to the global powers without firing a shot." September 23, 2009 : [in a Rush quote roundup] "I would describe what Obama is doing to this country as basically a coup. It's just frightening. He talks about a New World Order, and the New World Order is him. Obama is bigger than his country, bigger than the presidency -- he is the world." September 30, 2010 : A caller said Obama's immigration politics were "the basically coup d'etat tactics." Limbaugh did not disagree. Later, he said, "Bouncing here off the subject of our last caller, the issue here is the dictatorial nature of this regime and Obama's willingness to do anything to advance his agenda."

And that was before all the evidence rolled in! Now all the pieces are falling together. "You know it and I know it," Limbaugh said. "It's peaceful, nonviolent. The military isn't involved. But nevertheless it's a coup." 

On Fox News, Ann Coulter, too, added up all the data and concluded this is about something more than counterterrorism: "with the Rosen case and with the AP listening to their phone lines case or tapping to see where they were calling. And that is that the National Security justification was nonsense. It was bunk."  (She did not use the c-word.)

Dean Chambers, of Unskewed Polls fame, agrees with Limbaugh, and adds one more piece of data -- "all the tricks and dirty tactics Obama used to be elected in 2008 and reelected last year." He concludes, "That's right lefties, your beloved president Obama was SELECTED, not elected. Selected by the left, put in office by non-violent coup." However, Obama is the democratically-elected leader of the état in question.

And that's why we are also forced to admit that Limbaugh has been on both sides of the coup issue. 

June 29, 2009 : "Oh, and you know we learned about Honduras? We learned the Obama administration tried to stop the coup. Now, the coup was what many of you wish would happen here without the military." March 23, 2011 :  "But is there a contingency plan for -- I don't want to say an anti-American president, 'cause that's gonna cloud my real intent here... Is there a contingency plan to deal with a president who is of the belief that the United States is the problem?"

Careful, Rush. Obama is listening.

       

Rush Limbaugh Is Pretty Sure This TIme That Obama's Leading a Coup D'Etat

There is a split among conservatives between those who think the NSA's collection of data about every phone call in America is an important counterterrorism tool, and those who think President Obama is, as usual, trampling on the constitution and the flag and the Founding Fathers. But Rush Limbaugh takes it one step further. He says Obama is leading a coup d'etat. And this time it's for real. 

On Friday, Limbaugh added up the evidence -- the IRS targeting of conservatives, plus Fast and Furious and Obamacare, and now the NSA. "The evidence of the totalitarian nature or the authoritarian nature of this administration is on display undeniably every day," he said. What does it add up to? "Herbert Meyer," -- a blogger at American Thinker -- "asserted that essentially what's taking place in the United States right now is a coup, not a violent coup, and not a [militaristic] coup, but nevertheless a takeover of a government, and it's being done by the Obama administration." Limbaugh emphatically agrees:

He referred to it as a coup. I don't know if he used the word "peaceful," but clearly there's a coup d'etat going. You know it and I know it. This is what animates us. This is why the Tea Party exists. This country was founded on certain concepts, principles, beliefs -- and they're under assault. Chief among them under assault is the right to privacy, and that's what all this is about. So in the midst of this coup d'etat... I happen to like that formulation.

You know how we know Limbaugh likes that formulation? Because he's said Obama has been leading a coup so many times. 

February 26, 2009 : "This is not even about politics anymore, folks. This is really not even about politics. I'm going to have to come up with a way of explaining that so you understand what I mean. This is not about politics. It's a political coup, maybe, if you want to look at it that way." September 23, 2009 : "I did refer to this as a coup, a bloodless coup. He has delivered the United States to the global powers without firing a shot." September 23, 2009 : [in a Rush quote roundup] "I would describe what Obama is doing to this country as basically a coup. It's just frightening. He talks about a New World Order, and the New World Order is him. Obama is bigger than his country, bigger than the presidency -- he is the world." September 30, 2010 : A caller said Obama's immigration politics were "the basically coup d'etat tactics." Limbaugh did not disagree. Later, he said, "Bouncing here off the subject of our last caller, the issue here is the dictatorial nature of this regime and Obama's willingness to do anything to advance his agenda."

And that was before all the evidence rolled in! Now all the pieces are falling together. "You know it and I know it," Limbaugh said. "It's peaceful, nonviolent. The military isn't involved. But nevertheless it's a coup." 

On Fox News, Ann Coulter, too, added up all the data and concluded this is about something more than counterterrorism: "with the Rosen case and with the AP listening to their phone lines case or tapping to see where they were calling. And that is that the National Security justification was nonsense. It was bunk."  (She did not use the c-word.)

Dean Chambers, of Unskewed Polls fame, agrees with Limbaugh, and adds one more piece of data -- "all the tricks and dirty tactics Obama used to be elected in 2008 and reelected last year." He concludes, "That's right lefties, your beloved president Obama was SELECTED, not elected. Selected by the left, put in office by non-violent coup." However, Obama is the democratically-elected leader of the état in question.

And that's why we are also forced to admit that Limbaugh has been on both sides of the coup issue. 

June 29, 2009 : "Oh, and you know we learned about Honduras? We learned the Obama administration tried to stop the coup. Now, the coup was what many of you wish would happen here without the military." March 23, 2011 :  "But is there a contingency plan for -- I don't want to say an anti-American president, 'cause that's gonna cloud my real intent here... Is there a contingency plan to deal with a president who is of the belief that the United States is the problem?"

Careful, Rush. Obama is listening.

       

Obama's Cyberwar Target List Just Made His Meeting with China Very Difficult

Cyberwar is all-but-officially the new Cold War. In its third major scoop in three days, and just hours before President Obama was set to sit down at the Sunnylands estate in California with Chinese President Xi Jinping to talk about cyberwarfare, The Guardian reported that Obama ordered national security agents to compile a list of targets for preemptive Internet-based disruption, similar to the military's long-standing list of nuclear weapon targets. What's more, the directive includes targets within the United States.

Glenn Greenwald reports:

The 18-page Presidential Policy Directive 20, issued in October last year but never published, states that what it calls Offensive Cyber Effects Operations (OCEO) "can offer unique and unconventional capabilities to advance US national objectives around the world with little or no warning to the adversary or target and with potential effects ranging from subtle to severely damaging".

It says the government will "identify potential targets of national importance where OCEO can offer a favorable balance of effectiveness and risk as compared with other instruments of national power".

The full document, which can be read here, is addressed to much of the president's security council and cabinet and is predicated on "the United States' inherent right of self-defense." It reads, in part:

The United States has an abiding interest in developing and maintaining use of cyberspace as an integral part of U.S. national capabilities to collect intelligence and to deter, deny, or defeat any adversary that seeks to harm U.S. National interests in peace, crisis or war.

It later continues:

The United States Government shall conduct all cyber operations consistent with the U.S. Constitution and other applicable laws and policies of the United States, including Presidential orders and directives.

[image error]This suggests that any domestic cyberattack might face additional limitations. As The Guardian notes, the document indicates that the President must issue direct approval before any such action — as with any action deemed to have "significant consequences."

Several categories of planning are outlined. For example, agencies are directed to develop plans for "Responses to Persistent Malicious Cyber Activity," and for "Emergency Cyber Actions," in the event that it becomes "necessary to mitigate an imminent threat." Among the considerations in developing plans are "impact," "risks," geography and identity," "transparency," and "authorities and civil liberties."

The timing of The Guardian's story is particularly bad for the administration. The president and Chinese premier Xi Jinping are meeting at 5 p.m. Eastern to begin a two-day summit that includes cybersecurity as a topic. The BBC explains:

Last month the Washington Post reported that Chinese hackers had accessed designs for more than two dozen US weapons systems, citing a confidential Pentagon report. The US also directly accused Beijing of targeting US government computers as part of a cyber espionage campaign in a report in early May.

China denies any role in state-sponsored hacking - earlier this week its internet chief said China had "mountains of data" pointing to US-based cyber attacks.

The president's response to that just got much more complex.

The existence of the directive itself was not secret, as Greenwald notes. In January, the administration released a fact sheet on Presidential Policy Directive 20, which indicated that "it establishes principles and processes for the use of cyber operations so that cyber tools are integrated with the full array of national security tools we have at our disposal." What wasn't mentioned was this component, listed in the full document under "Policy Reviews and Preparation."

The Secretary of Defense, the DNI, and the Director of the CIA — in coordination with the AG, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security, and relevant IC and sector-specific agencies — shall prepare for approval by the President through the National Security Advisor a plan that identifies potential systems, processes, and infrastructure against which the United States should establish and maintain OCEO capabilities; proposes circumstances under which OCEO might be used; and proposes necessary resources and steps that would be needed for implementation, review, and updates as U.S. national security needs change.

The United States continues to maintain a secret list of possible targets for retaliatory or preemptive nuclear strike, dating back to the Cold War.

Presidential Policy Directive 20 includes one additional note aimed at keeping its details secret. "The government's public posture on related matters," it reads, "shall be: 'All United States Government activities in cyberspace are consistent with the principles stated in the May 2011 International Strategy for Cyberspace.'" That obfuscation is now somewhat unnecessary.

(Photo: President Obama and then-Vice President Xi at the White House in February 2012. Friday's meeting will be there first since Xi became president in March of this year.)

       

Jonah Lehrer's Second Chance Is Already Covered in Mud

Jonah Lehrer continues to thwart his own redemption. The journalist and author, who resigned from his posts at The New Yorker and Wired last fall after he was caught repurposing old blog posts, inventing Bob Dylan statements, and lying to Tablet's Michael Moynihan about doing so, now faces fresh charges of plagiarism — or at least copious derivation. On Thursday morning The New York Times published quickly mocked details of the 64-page proposal with which Jonah Lehrer secured a book deal with Simon & Shuster. "We believe in second chances," S&S Publisher Jonathan Karp said. Less than 12 hours later, Daniel Engber at Slate, having procured his own copy, discovered similarities between the text of the proposal, mainly concerning the idea of love, and a March 2013 essay by Lehrer's former New Yorker colleague Adam Gopnik.

How bad is it? The renewed calls of semi-plagiarism hinge on Lehrer's discussion of Charles Darwin's marriage. For example, in his own essay, Gopnik wrote that "the Darwins went on to have something close to an ideal marriage," whereas in his own proposal, Lehrer wrote that "the Darwins went on to have a nearly ideal marriage." In other passages, the order of Lehrer's Darwin quotes match that of Gopnik's. 

This isn't totally damning, certainly. But it doesn't exactly renew anyone's faith in Lehrer, who has been accused, by multiple critics, of recycling his own ideas and being, in his books and essays, a pretty sloppy thinker. And it raises a pressing question for anyone trying to cut it as a writer: Why does Jonah Lehrer get a second (or third, or fourth) chance while others struggle to break into publishing or journalism? As Forbes media critic Jeff Bercovici wrote:

Lehrer’s books made an exorbitant amount of money for his previous publisher, HarperCollins, enough to justify a high degree of risk. But that doesn’t sound genteel, so instead we get “We believe in second chances.” ... Even more than the humbug about second chances, misting up over the redemptive power of love is a nauseatingly cynical and manipulative bit of critic preemption.  Who’s going to be so uncouth as to come out against love, for God’s sake?

So Lehrer occupies a somewhat strange position, both the object of fierce criticism over journalistic sins and the beneficiary of forgiving editors willing to stick their neck out for a scandalized yet best-selling author. This is familiar territory, though: following his ejection from 4 Times Square, multiple defenses of Lehrer appeared, and as Boris Kachka explained in New York last year, Lehrer enjoys the continued support, if not the spirited public defense, of extremely influential editors he has worked with in the past, including his former boss, New Yorker chief David Remnick. To that list you can now add Ben Loehnen at Simon & Schuster, who will be editing Lehrer's book, tentatively titled A Book About Love and slated for release sometime after fall 2014. With his last two books, Imagine and How We Decide, removed from stores, it's not difficult to imagine that Lehrer's editors will double down on fact-checking Lehrer's work.

       

The NSA, This New American Digital Life, and Your Privacy: A Handy Guide

Speaking to the American people on Friday after two-and-a-half dizzying days of revelations about the National Security Agency's surveillance operations, President Obama offered an assurance of sorts: "[W]ith respect to the Internet and emails," he said, "this does not apply to U.S. citizens, and it does not apply to people living in the United States." Which depends heavily on how you define "apply." So we spoke with some people and did a little poking around to figure out how much you might need to worry about the government accessing your private information.

You are not an American citizen and are also a terrorist.

Amount you should worry: VERY MUCH

In theory, this is exactly who the PATRIOT Act and the Foreign Intelligence Services Act (learn more!) are meant to target: people from foreign countries that want to commit acts of terror. If that is you: 1) Thank you for reading The Atlantic Wire, we guess, and 2) you should probably not use American social networking tools for your terror-related activities.

You are not an American citizen.

Amount you should worry: A LOT

Here's the deal. These tools are used to investigate "foreign" communications about terror-linked activity in an effort to stop attacks before they occur. In other words, there is almost certainly a lot of investigating that isn't related to terror plots. If you are not an American citizen, the government is not restricted by the Fourth Amendment in its efforts to try and figure out if you plan to come here and wreak terror. The extent to which you care about dudes at the National Security Agency reading what you're putting on social media sites should be used as your guide for how reluctant you are to use them.

You are a citizen who uses Skype to talk to a friend that lives in Madagascar.

Amount you should worry: SOMEWHAT

The Washington Post describes the primary modifier to Obama's use of "apply."

To collect on a suspected spy or foreign terrorist means, at minimum, that everyone in the suspect’s inbox or outbox is swept in. Intelligence analysts are typically taught to chain through contacts two “hops” out from their target, which increases “incidental collection” exponentially. The same math explains the aphorism, from the John Guare play, that no one is more than “six degrees of separation” from any other person.

In other words, if the government has reason to suspect that your friend in Madagascar is involved in terror activities, it might review that friend's use of communications technology. (Remember: It's not just email that's being looked at.) In doing so, it might see what you and your friend communicated about. And, just like that, your privacy has been comprised.

Alex Abdo, an ACLU staff attorney, spoke with The Atlantic Wire about this very issue. The "two-hop" standard, he said, "will inevitably sweep in Americans."

The biggest logical problem with the warrantless wiretapping program is that they manage to bootstrap in Americans based on the the idea they can investigate any foreign communications they want. The government shouldn't have license to listen to any American's communication just because they talk to a foreigner.

Nonetheless, it seems to think that it does.

You use Facebook to talk to a friend that lives in the United States who is friends with someone in Madagascar.

Amount you should worry: SOMEWHAT

Abdo, of the ACLU, noted a possible side effect: Two Americans might end up being targeted for communication with each other.

After all, if you have a friend whose emails or Skype communication gets sucked up in the first hop of the NSA's investigation you're suddenly only one hop away. Given the sketchiness of details about how PRISM operates, it's not clear where the boundary in terms of time and extent lies. Does the NSA get to investigate that first-hop person for a certain time period? Only in a direct email chain? How that works obviously links directly to the likelihood that you'll be caught up as the second hop. But, as the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, suggested: it happens.

You use Facebook to interact with other Americans.

Amount you should worry: SOMEWHAT

This was covered in part above. But there's another issue. The government doesn't always know from social media who is and isn't an American.

As we reported earlier on Friday, the government has to have 51-percent confidence that the person its investigating is not an American citizen. In other words, if the government has 13 reasons to think that you're a citizen and 14 to think that you're not — or however that esoteric math works — it can look at your social media trail. Or, again, maybe you're friends with someone that the government is 54 percent sure isn't American. All of a sudden, you're a hop away again.

You have a cell phone.

Amount you should worry: A LOT

At least if you use Verizon or Sprint or AT&T, all of which apparently regularly turn over call metadata to the NSA. That data includes call duration, phone numbers involved, and, possibly, location information. How the NSA uses that information — if it does regularly at all — isn't clear. (Nothing's clear. Nothing about any of this is clear. Which was how the government was hoping to keep it.)

You are Amish.

Amount you should worry: NOT MUCH

The new revelations are predicated on the use of electronic systems for communication. If you don't use a cell phone and don't use social media and don't use Gmail, you're probably safe.

Except for all of the other ways in which the government might be investigating what you're doing. Or if you're on Rumspringa.

You are Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.

Amount you should worry: ZERO

If you are Senator Graham, you should not worry, because Senator Graham isn't worried about this. From Politico:

“I’m glad the NSA is trying to find out what the terrorists are up to overseas and in our country,” Graham said Thursday morning on “Fox & Friends.” …

“I’m a Verizon customer. I don’t mind Verizon turning over records to the government if the government is going to make sure that they try to match up a known terrorist phone with somebody in the United States. I don’t think you’re talking to the terrorists. I know you’re not. I know I’m not. So we don’t have anything to worry about.”

Clearly. Nothing at all.

Photo by user larsjuh on Flickr.

(Click here for complete coverage of the NSA revelations on The Atlantic Wire.)

       

TV Actress Arrested for Sending Ricin Letters

There are perhaps worse ways to lash out at your estranged husband than to threaten the life of the president, but none come immediately to mind. This afternoon, the FBI arrested Shannon Rogers Guess Richardson for sending ricin-tainted letters to Obama, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, and the head of Bloomberg's gun group. Richardson's husband, Nathaniel, is apparently doing just fine.

Attention turned to Richardson when she called the FBI and told them that she suspected Nathaniel of sending the letters, which were received at the end of last month. (This is also worth noting: There are probably worse ways to draw attention to your illegal activity than to tell the FBI that you think someone in your house did it, but none come immediately to mind.) The FBI investigated and determined that Richardson was the most likely suspect. NBC News reported on the arrest in New Boston, Texas today, noting that the letters emphasized the recipients' opposition to new gun legislation.

In a statement to E! News on Monday, Richardson indicated that she was innocent.

I would not put my unborn child or other children in danger just to 'frame' someone. He simply needed someone to blame for what he has done and I was the obvious person for him to blame. Most of what is being reported in this case is absolutely inaccurate. That's all I can say.

Given the recent history of ricin-letter investigations, it's worth giving Richardson the benefit of the doubt. In April, authorities arrested-and-then-unarrested Elvis impersonator Paul Kevin Curtis for similarly sending letters to the president. James Everett Dutschke was indicted for the crime last week, bringing the total number of names involved in the arrested suspects in these cases to ten.

If you're curious why E! News cared about a random arrest in Texas, the answer lies in Richardson's career. Her     

Here Are Your 2013 Tony Predictions

It's Tony time on Sunday, meaning the theater community will gather to honor a bunch of shows that most of America probably didn't see. This year's awards, hosted by Neil Patrick Harris, are pitted as a battle on the musical side between Kinky Boots and Matilda. When it comes to plays there's the question of whether Nora Ephron's posthumous Lucky Guy and its star Tom Hanks will take home any prizes, or whether Christopher Durang's Chekhov-inspired comedy Vanya and Sonia and Masha and Spike will sweep. Though we haven't seen everything, here's our best guess as to who is going to win. 

Best Musical

[image error]Well, at least part of this category is easy. You can eliminate Bring It On: The Musical and A Christmas Story, The Musical, two shows that didn't get such good reviews that are already closed, right off the bat. Then comes the hard part. Kinky Boots and Matilda are both beloved (though for different reasons), both critically praised (Matilda probably a little more so), and both would win in a year wherein they weren't pitted against each another. Kinky Boots, an adaptation of a 2005 movie, is about the friendship between the owner of a shoe factory and the drag queen who helps him save it. It's a warm, infectious show, that literally has the audience dancing at the end. Cyndi Lauper wrote the music and lyrics, which are poppy and familiar and comforting. Broadway favorite Harvey Fierstein wrote the book. Matilda, on the other hand, is being billed as the more cerebral show, the thinking person's favorite. It's adapted from Roald Dahl's classic book about a mistreated and brilliant little girl. The show is visually stunning, and from a scenery point of view feels more innovative. 

All of that makes it very hard to predict which is going to win. We think voters might swing Matilda, a show it's almost unfashionable to say you don't like, and has British prestige factor. 

Best Musical Revival 

This one's pretty easy. The Mystery of Edwin Drood got good reviews but closed too early. Annie was met with a resounding shrug. Rogers + Hammerstein's Cinderella (which in fact has never been on Broadway before) had its moments but needed work. And then there was Pippin. Pippin is a bizarre show about Charlemagne's son's quarter-life crisis, and director Diane Paulus upped the ante by adding a circus-theme. It's a big spectacle that voters will probably have a hard time saying no to. 

Best Actor, Musical 

[image error]Once again the Kinky Boots/Matilda split makes things difficult. Both Santino Fontana of Cinderella and Rob McClure of Chaplin don't have a shot. Stark Sands of Kinky Boots was great, but his Charlie has to take a backstage to Billy Porter's fiery performance as Lola. He's challenged by Bertie Carvel, in another gender-bending role, as Matilda's evil headmistress Miss Trunchbull. Carvel's physicality is amazing, and when he first appears on stage you have to look at your Playbill to make sure that it really is a guy up there. But, ultimately, it's a supporting role compared to Porter's.

Meanwhile, on the politics side there's a sense that Porter deserves this. Patrick Healy of the New York Times explains that Porter "has been in New York musicals and plays for 20 years and has emerged to create his first leading character, the show’s exuberant heart." Give this one to Porter.

Best Actress in a Leading Role in a Musical 

Though Stephanie J. Block might be forgotten for her gender-bending turn in Edwin Drood. Carolee Carmello in the Kathy Lee Gifford-penned Scandalous is definitely forgotten, and Valisia LeKae has the unfortunate task of holding down the jukebox musical fort here. That leaves Patina Miller, taking on a role played by a man in Pippin's original production, and Laura Osnes as the titular girl with the glass slippers. Either could win. We'll go with Osnes. Sure, she's sugary sweet, but she's risen above her reality show origins and proved herself a Broadway workhorse. Plus, she plays the title role. 

Best Featured Actress in a Musical 

No one remembers the now-closed Hands on a Hardbody, so Keala Settle is out. Matilda is popular, but even a victory overall won't win Lauren Ward the prize as Matilda's nervous teacher. Victoria Clark is a slightly off-kilter fairy godmother, but ultimately fails to make a lasting impression. We'd like to reward Annaleigh Ashford playing the romantic lead in Kinky Boots, but she'll ultimately lose to Broadway staple Andrea Martin, whose number in Pippin literally stops the show. 

Best Featured Actor in a Musical

Ultimately, we're least qualified to predict this category. Once again we'll get rid of the options from Hands on a Hardbody and Motown. That leaves us with Terrence Mann as Pippin's Charlemagne, Gabriel Ebert as Matilda's jerk of a father, and Will Chase in Edwin Drood. We're going to make a wild guess and give it to Chase, who has more of a leading role, as a potential murderer. 

Best Play

[image error]There are no hot new breakouts in this category this year; it's a crowd of familiar heavy-hitters. Well, I guess you could count novelist Colm Tóibín as a relative newcomer to the theater, but other than that it's all familiar faces. Let's count Tóibín out for his Testament of Mary, a one-woman show about Jesus's mom that hasn't really had much buzz, and has already closed, despite starring theater royalty Fiona Shaw. We can probably also guess that the great Richard Greenberg, a Tony winner for his beautiful gay baseball play Take Me Out, won't repeat for The Assembled Parties. While it got strong reviews, I just don't think it has the necessary fire behind it. That leaves Christopher Durang's wildly popular Lincoln Center transfer Vanya and Sonia and Masha and Spike, a family comedy with obvious Chekhovian influences, and the late Nora Ephron's Lucky Guy, most notable perhaps for being the play that brought Tom Hanks to Broadway. Lucky Guy could take the prize as a way of posthumously honoring the beloved Ephron, but I think that Durang's work will win, box office smash as it was.

Best Revival of a Play

I think we can prrrrobably toss out the early-closing, cast-troubled production of Orphans, right? I mean it's a lock for Best Email From Shia LaBeouf, but not for this category. Past that, we can probably also dismiss the tepidly received Odets revival Golden Boy. I think there's a slight chance that The Trip to Bountiful team could wind up on the stage, if only because everyone loved Cicely Tyson's performance so much. But really I don't think anything can compete with the rapturously received Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, a Steppenwolf import that had people going apesh-t over Tracy Letts and Amy Morton's fiery performances. It's been closed for a while, which could hurt it, but it's still the one to beat.

Best Actor, Play

[image error]Tom Hanks got his courtesy nomination. Tom Sturridge got the doff of the cap for playing a mentally challenged kid in Orphans. Nathan Lane received strong reviews for The Nance. But I don't think any of them are really competition for Tracy Letts blistering work in Woolf or David Hyde Pierce's much lauded turn in Vanya.

My inclination is that Letts will win for one of the best-reviewed performances of the season, but never discount David Hyde Pierce. I mean, remember when he beat out Raul Esparza's breathtaking work in Company for lamely soft-shoeing in the wheezy Curtains? The Tony voters love them some DHP, so he could triumph here. But, then again, the Tonys have lately loved giving awards to movie stars. So don't be surprised if Tom Hanks winds up with the spinning trophy. Can you really invite Tom Hanks to the Tonys and not give him one?

Best Actress, Play

Everyone in this category is great. Laurie Metcalf? Come on, a theater god. Amy Morton? Ditto. Kristine Nielsen more than held her own against David Hyde Pierce in Vanya, and beat costar Sigourney freaking Weaver out for a nomination. And Holland Taylor not only played former Texas governor Ann Richardson by herself on stage for two hours in Ann, she wrote the damn thing. So that's all great. But none of them are going to beat Cicely Tyson here. Not just because she's old, but because she was apparently quite good in Trip to Bountiful. It's a great group of women, but this year Dame Tyson is the greatest.

Best Featured Actor, Play

Things get a bit trickier here. Some people are predicting Richard Kind for The Big Knife, some are saying it'll be hunky Billy Magnussen for playing a hunk in Vanya, but I think it might be Courtney B. Vance for Lucky Guy. Really that's for no other reason than that he's been singled out in some reviews, and everyone I know who's seen the show has said, "Tom Hanks was good, but Courtney B. Vance was great!" Unscientific, I know, but this is a tough category. Go with your gut.

Best Featured Actress, Play

Again, something of a doozy. Will Shalita Grant add to Vanya's medal count? Might Judith Ivey sneak in there for her lauded work in the otherwise panned The Heiress? Will Phylicia's daughter Condola Rashad continue the family tradition and take home hardware for Trip to Bountiful? And what about good old Judith Light, who got good notices for Assembled Parties? Well, Light won last year, so let's scratch her off the list. And The Heiress closed a good long while ago and was something of a dud, so, sorry Ms. Ivey. Between Grant and Rashad (let's assume that fifth nominee Carrie Coon, for Woolf, is not really in the running here), I'd give the edge to Rashad. Hers is a more sentimental play and, y'know, the family name doesn't hurt. But, fair warning, there could be a Vanya acting sweep. Well, a three-quarter sweep. Again, Ms. Tyson is not going home on Sunday without that Tony.