Atlantic Monthly Contributors's Blog, page 1059

The Benghazi Conspiracy Isn't Surviving D.C.'s Scandal Week

To be clear: There are not three scandals plaguing the Obama White House. The IRS situation is probably a scandal. The AP subpoena is maybe a scandal. Scandal is a subjective term, after all, but it's clear that the standard should be higher than "political opponents making unfounded accusations." Which is, after a brief flurry of evidence that fell apart, what Benghazi still looks like. By embracing the leaked talking points, Obama's opponents may have taken Benghazi off the table completely.

Conspiracy advocates were about 12 miles down the track on Benghazi even before ABC News released the talking point drafts implying an administration cover up. Now we know that they were someone's notes on the emails, not the original text, and the White House has now released the email chain. But when the ABC News story went up, opponents of Obama (and Hillary Clinton) seized on them as definitive, as evidence that the White House and State Department colluded to obscure the truth of what happened. After weeks of throwing things at the wall, something stuck. And that was exciting.

On Monday, Dick Cheney offered his analysis to Sean Hannity. 

They lied. They claimed it was because of a demonstration video, that they wouldn’t have to admit it was really all about their incompetence. They ignored repeated warnings from the CIA about the threat. They ignored messages from their own people on the ground that they needed more security.

Each of Cheney's claims can now be rebutted. "They," meaning the White House, didn't claim the attack was the result of a demonstration video; the full set of emails shows that came from the CIA. There's no evidence that "they" ignored repeated warnings — though that issue did come up. "They" didn't ignore messages from "their own people on the ground" about the need for more security; their man on the ground, Ambassador Stevens who perished in the attack, declined offers to provide exactly that.

But when the notes on the emails were revealed — by some as-yet unidentified party willing to gloss over their specifics — the focus of most (but not all) Republican objections became the development of the White House talking points.

On Monday, before the entire email chain was released by the White House, here's how Carney described the White House and State Department's role.

Jay Carney was wrong. There wasn't only one change that the White House and State Department wanted to have made to the Benghazi talking points. Yes, Jake Sullivan from State wanted to change "consulate" to "U.S. mission." But he also wanted to add a missing "of." And the White House's national security spokesman weighed in, too, asking that the word "Cairo" be added. Copy editing is not yet at the level of high crimes and misdemeanors.

The State Department's Victoria Nuland did want broader changes, as ABC's source highlighted. She wanted to ensure that claims of Al Qaeda involvement wouldn't "prejudice the investigation," and she wanted to ensure that one point the CIA included, noting prior warnings of an attack, wouldn't be used to "beat the State Department." Those concerns ended up being reflected in the document — but were only removed when CIA Deputy Director Michael Morrell pared down the talking points to only include broadly accurate statements about what had occurred.

[image error]
Morrell's edits

According to ABC News:

A senior administration official said that Deputy CIA Director Mike Morrell agreed with Nuland's concerns and made the changes himself. There is no email record, however, showing that Morrell shared Nuland's concerns.

Carney's statement was clearly inaccurate and probably misleading. But it's also defensible in a pedantic sense: State's concerns certainly influenced the CIA, but the only direct changes reflected by administration suggestions were fairly minor.

(It's also worth noting that the email chain also exonerates Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice, as Jeffrey Goldberg points out. Rice, who was not nominated to be Secretary of State because of a furor over her delivering the final talking points on Sunday chat shows, only received a draft of the talking points after Morrell's edits, and offered little input.)

State wasn't the only agency that offered feedback. The day before Morell gutted the talking points, the FBI raised questions about the CIA's inclusion of "social media reports calling for a demonstration" — in other words, whether or not the YouTube video inspired the attacks. This change was critical.

Most of the coordination on changes for the talking points were led by the CIA, the same agency that originally led on developing the talking points. After Morrell's substantive changes, then-CIA head David Petraeus complained about the omission of a cable sent from Cairo to Benghazi. That cable was a warning about protests over the YouTube video. In other words, the FBI's suggestion may have saved the CIA some embarrassment.

The cable was also one of the threat warnings issued by the CIA that Cheney argued should have been heeded. Cheney's enthusiasm was understandable and widely shared. After months of attempts to show that the administration behaved inappropriately on Benghazi, here was something tangible, something that could be held up at a press conference and pointed to. Some mathematical: two suggestions, one set of talking points. But it wasn't smoke coming out of the gun, it was steam.

Now, with the release of the broader set of emails, Republicans are back to playing defense, which, of course, is why the White House released them. Obama's opponents were waiting for the facts to catch up with them on Benghazi. The release of the talking points may instead have derailed them.

I hope my friends in the media will realize they were fed a false bill of goods by Republicans on Benghazi. Be more skeptical next time.

— Senator Harry Reid (@SenatorReid) May 16, 2013

       

The Apostrophe's Battle Is Mountainous

A while back there was a mild or maybe sort of vehement kerfuffle about apostrophes with regard to signs in Britain. Officials in southwestern England thought they'd get rid of the 'postrophe and change, say, "King's Crescent to Kings Crescent" or "St. Paul's Square into St. Pauls Square." The idea was to avoid potential confusion, though who, exactly, was confused is not clear. Afterward, people did become confused, bellowing "why!?" from the public house's rafters in the town's squares, with the help of the Apostrophe Protection Society.

They won the battle, but did they win the war? Slowly but surely, the apostrophe has been forgotten or purposely left behind in an increasing array of words. In 2012, for instance, the UK book chain known as Waterstone's (named for founder Tim Waterstone) became Waterstones, to the great displeasure of many. But this battle is not confined to shores across the pond. And it's been going on far longer than you might think.

Today in The Wall Street Street Journal Barry Newman points out that right here in the U.S. of A. there's apostrophe war being waged as well: "The Domestic Names Committee of the U.S. Board on Geographic Names doesn't like apostrophes. Visitors to Harpers Ferry or Pikes Peak might not realize it, but anyone aspiring to name a ridge or a swamp after a local hero will soon find out." This comes up because in the town of Thurman, New York, the local government is working to honor James Cameron (not the director), who settled there in 1773. They want to give a mountain his name. They're not sure which mountain, or what to call it — Jimmy's Peak, Jimmie's Peak, James' Peak, maybe. But they know they want to include the apostrophe. The U.S. Board on Geographic Names, however, does not. 

A note for your grammar club: In their 113-year history of giving geographical locations names, The Domestic Names Committee has given a mere five exceptions for possessive apostrophes, "mostly under public pressure," writes Newman. That's Martha's Vineyard, Mass. (local protests); Ike's Point, N.J. (because no one could read it otherwise); John E's Pond, R.I. (very confusing otherwise); Carlos Elmer's Joshua View, Ariz. ("because the Arizona State Board on Geographic and Historic names argued that three given names in a row would 'dilute the meaning' since 'Joshua' is the name of a tree and 'Carlos Elmer' was the name of a photographer); and Clark's Mountain, Ore. (because that's how Lewis and Clark preferred it). Note: "The U.S., in fact, is the only country with an apostrophe-eradication policy" thanks to Benjamin Harrison, the one-term president who set up the Board on Geographic Names in 1890. Since then, they've been eradicating apostrophes one step at a time. "By one board estimate," writes Newman, "it has scrubbed 250,000 apostrophes from federal maps. The states mostly—but not always—bow to its wishes."

In the fight for the apostrophe for James Cameron's mountain, the typical arguments have come up again. Without it, there's chaos, there's no consistency, it's the typical slippery slope to illiteracy, words and phrases are hard to understand. Can't a person just have their possessive and eat it, too, perhaps at McDonald's? This trouble, of course, and the widespread 'postrophe panic, becomes even greater in Internet times. What do we lose if we lose the apostrophe?

Well, as linguist Geoffrey Pullum pointed out, following what I have enjoyed calling the British sign "catpostrophe" (think catastrophe, not felines), there's one thing people need to get straight: The apostrophe is not, technically, even a punctuation mark. Per Pullum, "Punctuation marks are placed between units (sentences, clauses, phrases, words, morphemes) to signal structure, boundaries, or pauses. The apostrophe appears within words." It's a fascinating tidbit, though it doesn't mean we can't keep loving, and hoping to hang on to, our apostrophes. On the bright side for apostrophe lovers, in 2011, after only 110 years, Children's Hospital Los Angeles finally added that little mark between the n and the s. Maybe there's hope.

       

The Conservative Crackdown on Tea Party Groups Vanished in the IRS Scandal

People on the right and left are appalled by the IRS's inappropriate targeting of Tea Party non-profits. The IRS "demanded names of board members, copies of meeting minutes and résumés, details of community organizing efforts," The Washington Post's Josh Hicks and Kimberly Kindy report, not to mention asked some groups for donors and membership lists — which is against IRS rules. Conservatives, in particular, are calling for harsh consequences — Michele Bachmann floated impeachment of President Obama on Thursday, though she wasn't fully ready to commit. "We can't reach to conclusion," she said at a press conference this morning. "Remarkable arrogance" was House Speaker John Boehner's line.  RedState editor Erick Erickson demanded of his fellow conservatives that "instead of fixating, we take advantage of it — elected officials, activists, and donors alike — we can use what the Obama administration did via the IRS to our advantage." But it's worth noting that not so long ago, Erickson was insisting that some of these Tea Party groups get some extra scrutiny.

As Politico reported earlier this week, the IRS scandal threatens campaign finance reform, specifically to stop what are essentially campaign groups from getting tax-exempt status. To get tax-exempt status, a 501(c)(4) has to be primarily a social welfare organization. But groups like the liberal Priorities USA and the conservative Crossroads GPS are social welfare organizations only in the sense that they were fighting for the welfare of Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, respectively.  None other than our friend Erick Erickson railed against the groups who shamelessly exploited campaign finance law. In fact, it seemed Tea Party groups were the worst. Erickson wrote just five weeks ago: 

My mother constantly gets mail at her house begging her for money to fight the good fight. More often than not, the groups begging her for help have “Tea Party” in their name and they are all scams.

He even alleged clear violation of elections law:

Give money to a conservative candidate and you too will see your mailbox explode. “But we cannot pull from FEC filings,” they claim. That may be the law, but when has that stopped them? Try this — give a handful of conservative candidates enough money to get printed in their FEC disclosures. “Mistype” your name. Watch as you suddenly see an avalanche of direct mail, all with your name mistyped.

And it was clear from Erickson's complaints that their primary focus was campaigning, however inefficiently, and not social welfare:

Like drug addicts wanting one more hit before going straight, they send out one last mail piece demanding money to help Allen West...

Never you mind that Allen West will never see one penny of the money. “We’re building his name identification,” the mailhouse tells you. Yes, in the days of Rush Limbaugh’s 20 million listener audience, Fox News’s domination of the news airwaves, and Allen West’s own efforts, I’m sure he needs some crappy little group no one has ever heard of using his name so that they themselves get money.

The IRS was trying to screen out groups that were seeking non-profit status to illegally finance campaign activity, which is good, but they were using a politicized method — screening for groups with "tea party" or "patriot" in the name, as well as those whose core issues were Tea Partyish themes like cutting spending — which is very bad. "It was pretty much a proctology exam through your earlobe," Karen L. Kenney of the San Fernando Valley Patriots told The Washington Post. It's not that conservative groups should have gotten a less vigorous exam (aside from possibly illegal questions about donors), it's that liberal groups should have gotten it, too.

       

Obama Talks Turkey About the IRS, Syria, Benghazi, the AP Leaks

Original Post: President Obama will hold a joint press conference today with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Erdogan, but you can bet the White House press corps won't be asking him about trade policies. The press will only get a brief number of questions after the two leaders talk about cooperation on the Syria conflict and other matters between the nations, but you can bet the assembled media will find a way to bring up both the IRS and Benghazi scandals. And the president will be prepared.

You can watch the White House live stream of the meeting below, but we'll also be providing updates as the questioning unfolds. The scheduled start time is noon Eastern, but don't hold your breath. (Currently about 30 minutes late; it's now 40 minutes ... and it's raining in the Rose Garden.)

LATEST (1:20 p.m.): Obama is asked about comparisons between his scandals and President Nixon's: "You can go ahead and read the history and draw your own conclusions." The other question is about the Justice Department and if he has confidence in Attorney General Eric Holder: He says fixing problems in the government "is my responsibility." The president stresses the dangers of leaks and how they can put the lives of diplomats and intelligence agents in danger overseas. For that reason he makes "no apologies" for pursuing those who leak information, as the DOJ did in investigating the Associated Press. After being reminded in a follow up that he didn't answer the question about Holder, Obama finally says he has "complete confidence" in Eric Holder.

Marines to the rescue! Raining harder, Obama asks for umbrellas, MArines instantly materialize twitter.com/lynnsweet/stat…

— Lynn Sweet (@lynnsweet) May 16, 2013

(1:13 p.m.): A Turkish media member asks both leaders about Syria. Obama says they will continue to push for a peaceful transition in Syria that removes Bashar al-Assad from power. "This is not something the United States does by itself."

(1:10 p.m.): Erdogan says he will visit the West Bank and Gaza in June.

(1:05 p.m.): The president was asked when he found how about the IRS tax scandal, and if he should have found out about it before the news broke in the press. He doesn't really address that specifically, but say: "My main concern is fixing a problem."

(12:55 p.m.): During his remarks, Obama announces plan to beef up security and training at embassies around the world, which includes asking Congress for funding for security. He referred to attacks in Libya and Turkey and mentions that the Turkish government will help in the effort.

JOIN THE LIVE CHAT VISIT WHITEHOUSE.GOV        

David Beckham to Begin His Beautifully Boring Retirement

Today in celebrity news: Becks has quit footy, Prince Harry leaves one last sexy impression on America, and Gwyneth Paltrow has sold herself on Groupon. 

If you weren't yet feeling old this morning, here's news that David "Becks" Beckham is retiring from professional soccer — "football" to the weirdos in the so-called "rest of the world" — at the ripe old age of 38. Finishing his long career with the Paris Saint-Germain club, Mr. Posh is ending on a high note; PSG just won the French title for the first time in almost twenty years. This is a big deal. Beckham is an international superstar, the Michael Jordan of soccer — if Michael Jordan was a high-voiced prettyboy who was married to a Spice Girl. What will Becks do next? Well, probably follow his wife Victoria on one of her international frowning tours, maybe hang out with his four children (the oldest of whom is 14! Time flies!), and definitely sit in a chair by the window staring out and wondering what the hell he's going to do for the next forty or fifty years. Retiring at 38 seems strange. Doesn't it seem strange? What do you do? I mean are you basically forced to go to various charity events for the rest of your life? No thanks! Charity is boring! He should start a minor league baseball career. That's what he should do. He needs to do something, get him out of the house. Otherwise he's just going to annoy Posh, who has a pretty set daily routine of designing clothes for a few hours and then lying prone on the floor in a semi-dark room and blinking for the rest of the day. He can't disrupt that. So shoo, David. Shoo. Go do something. Go play golf, go work at Trader Joe's, go do something. At home you're just a bother. Sorry, but that's retirement. [Daily Mail]

[image error]Speaking of internationally beloved British sex gods, Prince Harry continued to make quite the splash during his stateside tour yesterday. He played his big polo match in Greenwich, and the ladies in attendance were quite smitten. Page Six has a few juicy quotes about his virile polo performance, things like "He was quite strapping" and "You can feel his physicality! All the big bankers, real-estate titans and masters-of-the-universe got just as weak-kneed and unctuous as their female partners around him. Harry was so gracious and patient with everyone." Wait. Unctuous? Is that a real quote? And "female partners"? I do not think that is a real quote. Unless the person being quoted is named Page Six. I've no doubt that everyone, women and men, was basically a chorus of "Hummuna hummuna hummuna" for the duration of the polo match, but I don't think anyone was saying "unctuous" or "female partners." That said, this has truly been a sexy Prince Harry visit, hasn't it? I can't believe it's over. What are we going to do? Who have we got left? Ryan Gosling? Buh. Some old Mickey Mouse Club jerk. We just lost a prince and that's all we've got left. Let's all move to England. [Page Six]

Gwyneth Paltrow, the glimmer of winter light caught in a bottle and then poured into a white pantsuit, has auctioned herself on Groupon to great success. On Tuesday she offered a $2,000 meet-and-greet package, which would have buyers whisked to New York City, put up at a DoubleTree, and brought to a fabulous cooking demonstration by Paltrow herself, who is going to make a delicious meal of cabbage gas and potato whispers. There were spots for sixty devoted Paltrownians and the offer sold out in less than a day. So it's all happening. On June 14, a bunch of Groupon weirdos are going to come to New York City to watch Paltrow hum into empty pots for three hours before saying "Voila!" and then go back to the DoubleTree and wonder just what the hell they're doing with their lives. Also, the last time I saw the phrase "You and a friend are invited to the private goop event" it resulted in a lot of crying, a lot of panic, and many trips to the dry cleaners. Don't take your friend to a goop event. Unless it's the Kids' Choice Awards. Other than that? It's probably not even legal in most states. [Daily Mail]

Destiny's Child band member Kelly Rowland has apparently written a song confessing to being jealous of her old bandmate and pal Beyoncé. You may know Beyoncé from such things as being the most famous lady in the world. So yeah, that Beyoncé went and got as globally huge as she did after leaving Destiny's Child has thrown Rowland a bit, and she sings in her new song "Bird in a cage/You'd never know what I was dealing with/Went our separate ways but I was happy she was killin' it/Bittersweet, she was up, I was down/No lie, I feel good for her but what do I do now?" Tough! The song is called "Dirty Laundry" and it's very honest. Will it be a big Bey-style hit? I do not think so. But, oh well. At least she was truthful and made a little song out of it. That's more than JC Chasez can say, right? That dude just judges dance battle shows and works out at my sister's old gym. Take a lesson from Kelly, JC. Share your truth. [Us Weekly]

The only interesting thing in this non-item about Ashton Kutcher and Demi Moore's prickly divorce proceedings is this: "Her net worth is estimated at $150 million. Ashton's reportedly $10 million behind her." EXCUSE ME? Sorry my monocle just fell off my face and shattered on the ground. Did they just say that Ashton Kutcher is worth $140 million?? That's more than I make in a year! That is absurd. Honestly, downright absurd. Who let Ashton Kutcher make $140 million? Where is the SEC? Seriously, where is the SEC ever? This is a goddamned outrage. One hundred and forty million dollars. Ashton Kutcher. Incorrect, world. Poorly done, planet. That is not supposed to happen. Ashton Kutcher should be worth about $12,000 and a condo near the airport. In a just world that's what Ashton Kutcher would have. But we don't live in that nice place. We live here, where Ashton Kutcher has made $140 million, largely as the heir to the Popchips fortune. What a thing. What a terrible, terrible thing. [TMZ]

       

Hundreds of New Yorkers Are Still Living in Hotels After Sandy

See full coverage

The 41-floor New Yorker Hotel on Eighth Avenue in New York City has 912 rooms. That's only one room short of what it would take to house the 913 New Yorkers still living in hotels in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy.

New York City has been trying to wrap up its housing program for some time. Earlier today, the New York Supreme Court ruled that the city had to keep providing housing for victims of the storm beyond the May 31 deadline it had set, according to the Wall Street Journal. When that date was set, the residents sued, saying "they had received little assistance and few housing options from unprepared caseworkers" and "the city had given inadequate termination notices and failed to advise them of their rights to protest the evictions."

There are conflicting reports of how many people have been in the program over time. (New York's is one of several that have existed; FEMA, for example, had its own transition program.) Based on various news reports and today's court filing, we've put together this estimate of the number of households in New York's program over time.

The increase in February was the result of additions to the program as the weather grew colder.

The 913 figure is down substantially from the last time the city tried to end the program. When it announced an end-of-April deadline, there were some 2,000 people still needing to be housed — a figure too large for any one New York City hotel to accommodate.

Photo: The New Yorker Hotel, by saucysalad on Flickr.com.

       

Network TV Will Try Every Primetime Trick to Fend Off a Couch Potato Binge

We are very much in the age of binge-watching, when Sunday afternoon series catchup sessions seem more deliberate than disruptive, more intrinsic than lazy. The task of watching 22 episodes of a show over the course of a television season (with commercials!) seems positively prehistoric compared to streaming services and DVR. Especially when everyone's talk about Netflix's 15 new episodes of Arrested Development, which will be released simultaneously two Sundays from now, and which you can watch in any order you please. But the major TV networks have also spent this week releasing their new plans during upfront presentations, and it turns out the dinosaurs of the lower channels are disrupting their own programming models: Indeed, from new "limited-run" event shows (and old ones like 24) to existing but evolving hits like How I Met Your Mother, the big boys are already fighting back against not-so-little Netflix.

In an effort to at least seem like they're thinking out of the box, network executives are filling their upcoming seasons, as a new feature in Variety explains, "with specials that are a little more so, as well as short-run series that have a 'watch-now-or-miss-them-forever' kind of quality." The bigwigs are also, in at least two cases, tinkering with shows to play out almost as if in real time. Perfect, you know, for DVR-ing and watching at a later date. 

The Limited-Run Series 

[image error]The limited-run series—a purposefully short-lived show with a definitive end point, and no promise of return necessary—is officially a thing. At their upfront on Monday, Fox highlighted a variety of what they are calling "event series" that are either set to air or in development. The biggest, of course, is the reboot of 24, which will find the original writers coming back to revive Jack Bauer for 12 episodes. (He will sleep, maybe, but things will actually move faster than they did in the original series run.) Next year Fox will premiere M. Night Shyamalan's Wayward Pines, which the network is calling an "intense, mind-bending thriller" about a town starring Matt Dillon as a secret service agent. (And then Matt Dillon can go back to making movies.) Meanwhile, Fox also plans to reboot PBS' Cosmos with Seth MacFarlane executive producing. (Before Seth MacFarlane goes back to doing everything else he does, like ruining the Oscars.) ABC is experimenting with the idea of the limited-run series with Betrayal, which looks like it could be standard soap-opera-y fare, and Resurrection, about a boy comeback to life after being long dead. Even CBS—boring old CBS—is getting in on the action: Two dramas, Hostages and Intelligence, are being aired as limited-runs on Monday night with the latter eventually replacing the former in the schedule. See, the limited run can be cool and useful to programming strategy at the same time!

And it makes sense: try to rope in addicted viewers with a new kind of appointment television, but constrain the appointments for shorter attention spans. It's making TV essentially on the high-end cable model, but for network television. It's not really Netflix-style all-you-can TV, but it is HBO-style sit-down-and-it'll-be-good TV, where networks can hype a series for a short amount of time and then leave it be. Game of Thrones, you will remember, is the most expensive series on television—but it only hits you 10 episodes at a time, and every Sunday night.

Playing With Time

Once again, 24 was the ultimate model for this: time-sensitive TV. Two shows in the upcoming season, one old and one new, are going to try to do pull off real-time narratives... with comedy. Earlier on Wednesday we learned that How I Met Your Mother (which introduced the mother in its season finale) will, in its ninth and final season, take place over just one wedding weekend, according to TVLine's Matt Webb Mitovich. That's a big leap for a sitcom like HIMYM, which has been crawling along for eight seasons now.  (But has been known to have flashbacks and forwards.) Meanwhile, the first season of ABC's Mixology will take place all in just one night, in one bar, with a bunch of singles trying to hook up. It's not quite the new Arrested Development series, what with its intersecting story lines, but it does try to subvert the typical sitcom model. We've never been big HIMYM fans, so we can't speak to whether or not the time frame will thrive. Apparently not, according to Vulture, and it doesn't seem wise to mess with something after such a long time. Mixology, meanwhile, does not look promising, but that has less to do with timeframes and more to do with the generally lame dialogue. 

(Click here for complete upfront coverage from The Atlantic Wire. Up on Thursday: The CW....)

       

CBS Is Still a Shimmering Pile of Junk

The brass at CBS were certainly some pretty smug motherf--kers at Wednesday's upfront presentation, taking their sweet time with gags and musical bits and other silliness at Carnegie Hall, because y'know what? They can. The network is way ahead of the other broadcast networks in basically all measures, clobbering all the silly Smashes and New Girls of the world with all its extremely popular, largely terrible programming. There was a lot of braggadocio going on at the presentation, especially when CEO Les Moonves averred that broadcast wasn't in trouble at all, taking digs at cable and the Internet. But, as Time TV writer James Poniewozik points out, CBS's success doesn't mean that broadcast isn't in trouble. (Someone tell Fox.) And anyway, business aside? Because, um, money isn't everything I guess? CBS is awful! And today was a hearty reminder of that.

Because the network was only introducing six new shows — a whopping twenty were renewed from this season — they had lots of time to fill. So there were cast appearances and the aforementioned jokes and songs, and it also gave the network ample time to crow on about their current stable of programming. We had long intro reels for news, sports, comedy, and drama, highlighting some of the network's most dismal successes. I'm not really a sports or news guy, and Survivor and The Amazing Race are great, so I'm mostly talking about the scripted shows. Boy, what stinkers. And they are so proud of the stinkers! I know that I've confessed to watching NCIS, but that doesn't mean it's good! Because it is not; it is a blunt and unintelligent show rife with jingoism, sexism, and good old fashioned anti-intellectualism. I mean, that could be said for almost all CBS shows, minus the jingoism in the case of something like Big Bang Theory. (The other two isms apply.) And NCIS: LA is even worse! Yes, these shows are the nation's highest rated dramas and comedy, but beyond the numbers game, these guys have nothing to be smug about.

There is The Good Wife, a sharp and engaging and terrifically cast show, and I will grudgingly admit that How I Met Your Mother could have its moments in the early days (not so any longer, of course), but by and large CBS makes junk. Dumb, pandering, extremely popular junk. And they're adding some more! The glimpse we got of the six new shows was consistently dreary, everything looking like some bad new version of some bad old thing. The two new dramas are both crime shows. One is called Hostages and stars Dylan McDermott and, inexplicably, Toni Collette. (Guess houses in Point Piper don't buy themselves.) It's another serialized thing that would probably work much better as a movie. And then there's Intelligence, starring Josh Holloway as a special ops guy with a computer chip in his head that makes him smarter. Yeah. That's the whole thing. I'd say Holloway was crazy to do this, but have you ever seen a dumptruck full of money backing up to your house? Quite an effective sight.

On the comedy side there's the new Chuck Lorre show Mom, with Anna Faris. It's maybe the most promising of the four, though that's not saying much. I feel bad for Faris and her costar Allison Janney; they both deserve better than this. In terms of deserving better, no one fared worse in this upfront than poor Margo Martindale, the great and crafty actress reduced to yelling masturbation and fart jokes at Will Arnett in the seemingly abysmal The Millers. And poor Sarah Michelle Gellar just can't get a post Buffy break — her new comedy with Robin Williams (!), The Crazy Ones, is clearly trying very hard to go for the smart/silly vibe of 30 Rock and The Office, but what we've seen so far doesn't come close. (Sorry, Gellar. Why did HBO have to pass on The Wonderful Maladys?) I'm not even going to dignify We Are Men with a description, as the plot and tone should be obvious from the title.

So what I'm saying is that while CBS may be strutting around all proud and cocky because their shows are wildly popular, their shows, both old and new, are also wildly awful. So there. That'll fix 'em. Hmm? What's that? Les Moonves and the gang just said "Pfft" and went strutting off to the bank? Fine. I tried.

(Click here for complete upfront coverage from The Atlantic Wire. Up on Thursday: The CW....)

       

'Angry' Obama: IRS Chief Is Out, and New Safeguards Are Coming

As expected, President Obama's remarks Wednesday evening on the investigation into the IRS's targeting of "Tea Party" and "Patriot" groups were short, but not without consequence: the acting commissioner of the IRS, Steven Miller, has resigned in the wake of the scandal. It looks like a symbolic resignation: Miller, who was named acting commissioner just seven months ago and was more-or-less a fill-in until the Senate confirms a permanent replacement,     

Zach Braff Didn't Really Need Your Money

Today in show business: Zach Braff's Kickstarter movie just got some real funding, two non-singers are joining the Into the Woods cast, and Bradley Cooper is headed to the kitchen.

News comes today from Cannes that Zach Braff has found financing for his new movie, Wish I Was Here. "Wait... what?" you may ask, "Didn't his film already get its financing from the Kickstarter campaign I donated to?" Well, yes, the $2.6 million that Kickstarter contributors gave to Braff helped, but Worldview Entertainment, a film financing company — you know, the one that will make a profit if the movie makes a profit — has chipped in the rest. The film is budgeted at under $10 million. (Garden State was made for $2.5 million.) Oh, and, there's this: "With Worldview on board, a small percentage of the money raised will be returned in the form of a fee to Kickstarter, according to insiders." Not returned to the people who gave it, of course, but to Kickstarter. So lots of people who love Zach Braff movies basically just gave their money to Kickstarter and saved a couple mil for Worldview Entertainment. Kickstarter normally charges a fee on successful campaigns, and of course movie financing is complicated and none of this is all that surprising, but it does shed some light on the fact that the whole crowdfunding thing isn't exactly as pure speaking-power-to-art process as it's sometimes represented to be. Anyway, I know Kickstarter sour grapes are getting boring, but this seemed worth mentioning. Carry on, Braffians. [The Hollywood Reporter]

Oh, one more thing about the Zach Braff movie? Josh Gad has joined the cast. You made that happen! Well done, you. [Deadline]

Hm. More Into the Woods casting news. It seems that Jake Gyllenhaal and Chris Pine, neither exactly known for their singing, might be joining the cast, playing the two princes who sing "Agony" together. I don't know. Whatever. I'm done being upset that this movie is happening. Those aren't huge parts, so it's not that big of a deal. They probably can't sing, but what can you do? This is the world, folks. And the fact is we have very little control over anything, even parts of our own lives, so why get mad about the annoying celebrity casting of Into the Woods. Who cares. Just so long as they don't cast Anne Hathaway as the Baker's Wife. Please don't do that, Rob Marshall. Then something might have to be done. [The Hollywood Reporter]

Would you like Bradley Cooper to cook you dinner? Well, you will get closer to that fantasy soon enough. He's just signed on to star in the John Wells drama Chef, playing a chef "who destroys his wunderkind status in a blaze of decadence and out of control behavior. He cleans up and returns to Paris sober, determined to redeem himself by spearheading a top restaurant that can gain three Michelin stars." That sounds intriguing! I guess the whole foodie craze has finally reached Hollywood, as this production has just issued a cease and desist to another movie called Chef, this one directed by Jon Favreau, a comedy about a failed chef who tries to revive his career by opening a food truck. Food trucks! Very trendy. Anyway, Bradley Cooper in a white coat making beautiful food in Paris. Sounds fine, right? [Deadline]

Michelle Williams and Joel Edgerton have signed on to star in a remake of the Italian thriller The Double Hour, to be directed by Joshua Marston, who did Maria Full of Grace. Meanwhile, James van der Beek's sitcom Friends with Better Lives has been picked up for midseason by CBS. [The Hollywood Reporter]

Here's a trailer for Riddick, the third movie featuring Vin Diesel's iconic Riddick character. Everyone loves Riddick. They're always talking about Riddick. It's always Riddick this, Riddick that. People naming their kids Riddick. The nation has Riddick fever. I mean, right? Why else would there be a third Riddick movie? It's got to be that everybody loves Riddick.