Atlantic Monthly Contributors's Blog, page 984

Report: The CIA Has Been Polygraphing Operatives to Stop Benghazi Leaks

The CIA is subjecting operatives working in Libya to polygraphs as much as once a month to stop them from leaking to the press or Congress about Benghazi, CNN's Jake Tapper and Drew Griffin report. Usually, CIA operatives are polygraphed only once every three or four years.  "It is being described as pure intimidation, with the threat that any unauthorized CIA employee who leaks information could face the end of his or her career," CNN reports. The CIA told CNN that it has been cooperating with congressional oversight committees and "CIA employees are always free to speak to Congress if they want."

The story suggests the CIA wants to keep its operations in Benghazi secret, not specifically what happened the night of the attacks. It was not until weeks after the Benghazi attacks that it was reported the diplomatic facility there was mostly a CIA operation. Two former Navy SEALs who died during the attack were reportedly CIA contractors. Now CNN reports that 21 people were working at the CIA annex on the night of the attacks, while a total of 35 people were working at the mission. (This tracks with estimates in earlier reporting.) What were they doing there? That's been the subject of much speculation for months. In March, Sen. Rand Paul floated the theory that the Obama administration was covering up a gun-running operation to arm Syrian rebels. In May, Paul speculated on CNN. "I’ve actually always suspected that, although I have no evidence, that maybe we were facilitating arms leaving Libya going through Turkey into Syria."

The CNN report offers a nod to that:

The State Department told CNN in an e-mail that it was only helping the new Libyan government destroy weapons deemed "damaged, aged or too unsafe retain," and that it was not involved in any transfer of weapons to other countries.

But the State Department also clearly told CNN, they "can't speak for any other agencies."

On Thursday, House Oversight Committee chair Darrell Issa subpoenaed more State Department documents related to Benghazi. Issa is seeking interviews and documents collected by an independent review board. The initial focus of the Benghazi controversy was who wrote the talking points for then-U.N. ambassador Susan Rice to use on five Sunday shows after the attacks. But as Paul's comments show, the controversy seems to be evolving.

       

'We're The Millers' Is Jennifer Aniston's Second Chance to Be Bad

A new red band trailer for the comedy We're The Millers was released today, and from the looks of it, Jennifer Aniston is giving the whole good-girl-gone-bad thing she tried two summers ago another try. In the trailer, Anisto swears, flips the bird, gives Sudeikis blow job pointers, and appears not once, but twice, in her undergarments — because she's a stripper, you see. The comedy reunites Aniston with her Horrible Bosses co-star Jason Sudeikis but, more importantly, gives her a second chance to play a sexed-up character after the mixed success of her Bosses role.

We're The Millers follows David (Sudeikis), a pot dealer who needs to transport an RV's worth of weed across the country. He enlists Aniston's stripper Rose and a couple of kids to form a fake family for a fake road trip. So Aniston's a good girl, playing a bad girl, pretending to be a good girl. From what we've seen, Aniston's Millers character's motivations at least appear to make sense — more than you can say for her Horrible Bosses role, a dentist who spent most of her screen time nonsensically sexually harassing Charlie Day's character. 

While Horrible Bosses was reasonably well-received — it was a hit and currently has a 69 percent rating on Rotten Tomatoes — Aniston's part was met with pity, scorn or tepid praise depending on the critic. Mike LaSalle and the San Francisco Chronicle lightly praised her performance and said her scenes "play off against her wholesome image ... and benefit from her comic timing." Several critics, however, found the role underdeveloped. Elizabeth Weitzman at the New York Daily News wrote that "Aniston commits fully to a truly thankless role; surely there are better ways to shed her good-girl image than by desperately molesting the whiny Day." One of the most damning reviews came from Will Leitch, writing for Yahoo's movie blog. "As encouraging as it is to see Aniston — a naturally funny but notoriously buttoned-up actress — letting her freak flag fly [...] the role, quite simply, makes no sense," Leitch writes. And while it's of course not entirely Aniston's fault that he role wasn't as developed as it could have been, maybe the blame does ultimately fall with her. Leitch continued:

The film hasn't thought about Aniston's character one step past "she just wants to have sex all the time," and no matter how hard Aniston tries, the role's inherent limitations can't help but make her look silly, desperate and, all told, sort of offensive. It's not necessarily her fault, but hey, she signed on for the part.

Based on this admittedly brief glimpse of We're the Millers, Aniston seems to have picked a much better "bad" role this time around. The funniest part of the Millers trailer might just be when Aniston gives a deadpan delivery of a prayer that nearly brings a female flight attendant to tears. As the two ladies hug it out, Aniston flips off Sudeikis and mouths "Fuck you." It's funny, but more importantly it's believable, this fake wife/stripper playing at piousness and hating every minute of it. She's a sexual, raunchy person, but in a way that a real person, not the imagined dream girl of a single 35-year-old who lives at home, might be. If Aniston is determined to buck a years-long persona and really go bad, this trailer suggests she may have found her true opportunity.

We're The Millers is out August 7.

       

Google's Moto X Cleverly Appeals to Your Individuality

With its just-announced, much-anticipated Moto X phone, Google has decided to play up the vanity angle, understanding that consumers care as much, if not more, about personal style than substance — a complete turn-around from Motorola's usual pitch to tech dorks. Moto X comes in 504 potential combinations for any personality type or gender, with 18 available backplate covers, the choice of a black or white front panel, and seven different colors for the side buttons and the ring around the rear camera lens. As Google's ad campaign makes clear, this phone will match any style, such as "feminine mystique" for the ladies (or maybe teens):

[image error]

And there's this "kemosabe" pitch for a certain type of dude:

[image error]

Only way down at the bottom of its promotional site does Google add a "message for our tech geeks," listing the specs, which The Verge assures are "mid-range throughout." (Meaning: nothing special.) Google has literally put specs last and design first. 

That's the exact opposite of how Motorola has sold all of its previous phones. One of the original Droid commercials titled "Pretty" declared: "It's not a princess, it's a robot. A phone that trades hairdo for can do" — an obvious jab at the iPhone. Even as late as 2012, Motorola sold the Droid Razr Maxx with the tagline "Droid does." All of its commercials start with that "Droid" robot sound meant to appeal to people who...like robots.

That strategy, however, did not fare well. The iPhone, despite being a "digital princess," won on its looks, feel and user interface. And Motorola smartphones have continually lost their market share since smartphones became a must-have. 

And, so, enter the Moto X: "designed for mass appeal, not just a slice of the population like Star Wars fans," as Wired's Steven Levy aptly puts it. The masses, as opposed to the early-adapter geeks, care what their phones look and feel like. The Moto X doesn't just recognize that, it plays into your particular tastes. Instead of going out and buying an iPhone case to reflect your individuality, the Moto X comes pre-made just for you. It's even made in the good ol' U.S.A. to appeal to your moral sensibilities. It's not just for a type, the claim goes, but for every type.

Of course, as other good-looking phones have learned, appearance only gets a device so far. But, some techies say, despite those mid-range specs, its looks and some other defining features are enough to push it over the edge. 

       

Bob Filner's Lawyer: San Diego Is Partially To Blame for Sex Scandal

Earlier this week, San Diego mayor Bob Filner's legal team made a rather bold request on behalf of the sex scandal-plagued politician: the City of San Diego should step up and pay his legal fees in a lawsuit stemming from one of several accusations of sexual harassment. And now we know why. Filner's attorney, Harvey Berger, wrote a letter to the City Council saying that the city never provided Filner with sexual harassment training, as required by law. 

The letter (which an ABC affiliate snagged with a public records request), is a response to the city's request for an explanation in Filner's request for financial backing, explains (emphasis his): 

The City has a legal obligation to provide sexual harassment training to all management level employees, and to provide such training to new manages within six (6) months of hire...the City failed to provide such training to Mayor Filner...if there is any liability at all, the City will almost certainly be liable for "failing to prevent harassment"

Berger continues to explain that the lack of sexual harassment training is an ongoing problem in Filner's life: 

While, to paraphrase Bob Dylan, many might argue that "you don't need a weatherperson to tell you which way the wind blows," and an adult male should not need sexual harassment training, I would point out that in his decades of public service for the people of San Diego as a U.S. Representative, Mayor Filner never received sexual harassment training. This is not an excuse for any inappropriate behavior which may have occurred, but having conducted sexual harassment training scores of times over the years, I have learned that many - if not most - people do not know what is and what is not illegal sexual harassment under California law.

"Had the city provided mandatory sexual harassment training to Mayor Filner," he continues, "Ms. McCormack Jackson may never have brought her lawsuit." And then things get really interesting. Although Filner himself has admitted to inappropriate behavior in vague terms, the letter gives some big hints to their defense tactic for Filner: first, that "not all behavior which is offensive is necessarily sexual harassment under California law," and a related second, that not all of the accusations against the mayor occurred in the eight months since he's been Mayor, or refer directly to an employment relationship (the plaintiff in the lawsuit, however, used to work for him as his communications director). "Virtually all of these statements refer to alleged acts committed years ago, not while Mayor Filner was in his present role, and such claims would be barred by the statute of limitations," he writes. 

The letter was sent to the City Council on Monday. On Tuesday, the Council voted unanimously against funding Filner's defense, and indicated that they would sue the mayor should his legal troubles result in any damages for the city.

Of course, there are two separate issues here: there's the lawsuit, on behalf of one of the accusers. And there's the mounting number of accusations arguing that Filner's behavior is inappropriate for someone serving as an elected city official, whether it's legal or not. The accusations detail the Mayor's alleged unwanted kissing, touching, and comments, which the eight women who've come forward so far say they've both been subjected to and witnessed. 

As for Filner's fitness to continue to serve as mayor — he has refused to resign so far — the official is eligible for recall under San Diego municipal law. But that process has run into a few substantial complications after two separate sets of paperwork to start up recall petitions were filed almost simultaneously, leading to a bitter fight between the two organizers. 

Read the full letter here: 

Harvey Berger Letter

 

       

The U.S. Can't Connect a Single Death to Bradley Manning's Leaks

After Tuesday's verdict, the sentencing hearings for Bradley Manning got underway on Wednesday with something of a setback for the government's prosecution: the counter-intelligence official in charge of investigating the impact of the Wikileaks disclosures couldn't find a single instance of someone getting killed because of Manning's leaks. 

That admission, from now-retired Brigadier general Robert Carr, sounds a bit like a record scratch for the U.S.'s go-to argument against whistleblower activity: that the release of classified information puts lives at risk. Carr was in charge of the post-Wikileaks investigation into the disclosures' impact. The Guardian recounts the exchange that ultimately led to part of Carr's testimony being struck from the record: 

Carr initially toldl the judge presiding over the case, Colonel Denise Lind, that there had been an individual killed in Afghanistan as a result of the publication by WikiLeaks of the Afghan war logs that recorded military activities on the ground. "As a result of the Afghan logs I know of one individual killed – an Afghan national who had a relationship with the US government and the Taliban came out and said publicly that they had killed him as a result of him being associated with information in these logs," Carr said.

But under defence cross-examination Carr conceded that the victim's name had not be included in the war logs made public by WikiLeaks. Asked by Lind whether the individual who was killed was tied to the disclosures, Carr replied: "The Taliban killed him and tied him to the disclosures. We went back and looked for the name in the disclosures. The name of the individual killed was not in the disclosures."

The Afghan war logs contained over 900 names, many of whom were already dead by the time the information was leaked. Carr also said he wasn't aware of anyone dying from the Iraq logs information, either, after the U.S's 10-month, $6.2 million dollar investigation. But Carr himself clarified that he stood by the assertion that the leaks had the potential to endanger lives, and to have an impact on U.S. intelligence work. He, speaking as a witness for the prosecution, said that the U.S. lost informants and supply lines because of the leaks. Another witness, John Kirchhofer, described an angry scene with NATO reps following the leak (via the LA Times): 

“There were some unpleasant comments directed at me and some accusations directed at the U.S.,” he said. “They were aggressive. People got chesty.”

According to the Huffington Post, the impact of the Wikileaks information is only being discussed now, after the verdict, because the judge in the case didn't believe the information was relevant either way to whether Manning broke the law or not. Manning, who was acquitted of "aiding the enemy" but convicted on 19 other charges, faces a maximum sentence of 136 years. But today wasn't a particularly great day for the government's intended goal of securing that sentence. 

This post has been updated with additional information. 

       

That Rolling Stone Cover Sold Pretty Well

[image error]

So much for the big retail boycott of Rolling Stone's August issue. You know, the one with Boston Bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's photo on the cover. It turns out that retail sales of the issue were just fine — even more than fine, actually. They were more than double their average sales-per-issue for the past year. 

Adweek explains that, based on point-of-sale data from the Magazine Information Network, 13,232 retail copies of the issue sold between July 19 and 29. That number accounts for sales at just under 1,500 retailers, but still indicates that sales were substantially higher than normal overall. But retail only accounts for about 5 percent of magazine sales for Rolling Stone anyway, according to Adweek, so it's not like the boycott of several national and regional retail chains of the issue was going to really dent its circulation. That boycott, which included CVS, Walgreens, and Stop & Shop, was prompted by loud public outcry against the magazine's decision to publish an image of Tsarnaev that some thought glorified him. 

The issue also prompted a Massachusetts State Police officer to leak photographs of the bomber, bloodied and defeated, as authorities closed in on him days after the bombings. "This is the real Boston bomber. Not someone fluffed and buffed for the cover of Rolling Stone magazine," Sean Murphy told Boston magazine. Murphy was quickly put under an internal investigation. 

Meanwhile, the actual article the Rolling Stone cover is meant to illustrate has been well-received, once people actually got around to reading it. 

       

After Championing His Cause, BuzzFeed Turns on Reza Aslan

Religious scholar Reza Aslan became a hero of civil discourse and tolerance when he deflected a Fox News interviewer's attacks about how he, a Muslim, could write a book about Jesus of Nazareth. But Aslan's case would not have come to such national prominence were it not for a BuzzFeed post that drew attention to the exchange:

[image error]

Now, however, as Aslan has become a cause célèbre, BuzzFeed seems to be trying to draw attention back to itself, with Andrew Kaczynski — who published the original post — returning with a post titled "Author Attacked By Fox News Is Actually Kind Of A Jerk On Twitter"

[image error]

Kaczynski finds 25 instances of Aslan attacking detractors on Twitter, sardonically branding them "fucking geniuses" and telling them, "Get your head out of your ass." These tweets came before the Fox News controversy, though they all tread on exactly the same ground.

The question is whether any of them makes Aslan a "jerk." He has endured an almost unimaginable assault on his character, his faith and his integrity as a scholar. The Fox News imbroglio did little more than shed light on how difficult it is to be a serious Muslim scholar in America today.

The tweets unearthed by Kaczynski simply buttress the same point, instead of suggesting — as the post implies — that Aslan's equanimity in the face of Fox News's barrage of idiocy were some kind of act.

As Aslan told The Atlantic Wire's Zach Schonfeld yesterday, Islamaphobe's "have been hounding me for a decade." Hence the angry tweets, which may not be eloquent, but, well, that's Twitter. The man wants to talk about ideas, not explain how he is not — really, he promises — an agent of the mullahs in Tehran. But even more, the post plays right into Fox News's agenda, tacitly lending credence to the suspicion that Aslan is not one of us, that attacks on him are somehow justified — whether because he is a Muslim or merely a jerk.

       

San Diego Mayor to Employees: Why Don't You Slip into Something More Comfortable?

San Diego Mayor Bob Filner, currently embroiled in a sex scandal that won't stop getting worse, didn't do much to help his quest to win over public opinion today by releasing a memo on office attire. After careful consideration, the mayor wants every day to be casual Friday:  

To All City Employees:

The Mayor has suggested and I concur, that as we move into the hot days of August, September and October, we should extend business casual attire usually saved for Fridays to all workdays through October 31, 2013.

If you are scheduled for meetings or other activities that require business attire, I will continue to expect you to dress in an appropriate manner. This is especially true when attending City Council meetings, committee meetings or other meetings which involve public participation. I also understand that business casual attire may not be appropriate for all working environments. Please be sure to speak with your supervisor should you have any questions about whether it is acceptable to wear casual business attire to specific meetings or other work activities.

As always, each Appointing Authority is responsible for establishing appearance guidelines within their respective areas. Please contact the Human Resources Department should you have any questions about what constitutes business casual attire.

I hope you are all having a great summer.

Thank you,

Walt Ekard, Interim Chief Operating Officer

via Citywide Internal Communications Team

Supervisors: Please post this message for any employees who do not have access to City email.

Filner faces sexual harassment accusations from eight women, including former employees, who allege that the mayor routinely makes inappropriate sexual comments, and tries to touch and kiss, women without their consent. Filner, who has said that he'd prefer to undergo therapy instead of resigning, will be sued by his own city for any legal fees incurred in a sexual harassment lawsuit filed against him. In the meantime, the mayor may want to at least stay away from any indication that he's thinking about the clothing choices of his employees. 

       

Fox News Is Rushing to Defend Its Reza Aslan Interview

Fox News, after a pause, has come back fighting against criticism of their interview with Reza Aslan, a Muslim scholar who wrote a book about Jesus. And as the discussion about a book that's more or less a William Manchester-style literary biography (that is, one steeped in scholarship, but written for the mainstream) of the historical Jesus spirals further and further away from, you know, the actual content of the book itself, what's emerging is a deep, conservative fear, and anger, concerning the audacity and bias of non-Christians who discuss the content of the Bible. 

Here, via TPM, is Fox News's attempt at hitting back against the significant criticism of Lauren Green's handling of Aslan, and his work: 

To recap: Shannon Bream, conservative Christian graduate of Liberty University, was speaking with L. Brent Bozell III, a Catholic who runs the conservative Media Research Center, about the ability and validity of someone who is not Christian to fairly discuss the historicity of religion. That discussion includes an assessment, apparently without irony, of Aslan's devotion to his own faith: 

Right wing founder of Media Research Center @BrentBozell says I'm “not a very good Muslim” Which is it guys? Devout Secret or Bad Muslim?

— Reza Aslan (@rezaaslan) July 31, 2013

Much of Aslan's (and lots of others') frustration with Fox News began when Lauren Green wondered why a Muslim would "be interested in the founder of Christianity?" and her claim that Aslan's book was "like having a Democrat writing a book about why Reagan wasn’t a good Republican." While similar questions can and do provide a great opportunity for discussion among people who believe differently but have the same interests, Green's repeated questions represent a suspicion to his intentions that could be warranted, say, against a Hitchens-style screed against the idea that religion has value. But Aslan's book seems far from a religous attempt to question the facts of a Christian narrative in order to undermine it. 

Bozell thinks that Aslan's Muslim faith gives him an inherent 'bias' in his ability to write about Jesus. Why? In a nod to Aslan's choice to write about Jesus as a man, Bozell says that "the Muslim faith believes that Jesus Christ did not have a divine nature." But Bozell seems to miss that despite the fact that Muslims believe in the Virgin Birth, Aslan's book doesn't find much evidence of this religious claim, either — so where's the Muslim bias there? Additionally, Aslan, along with most experts on the history of Jesus, argues that Jesus was almost certainly crucified, while Islam is much more ambiguous on the subject — they believe he was brought up to heaven beforehand. Still, Aslan's Muslim bias is the central claim Fox News is making against Aslan's ability to write about Jesus. Evangelical author John S. Dickerson's rant against Zealot for FoxNews.com finds a thousand ways to repeat this claim, arguing that Islam sees Jesus as a "zealous prophet type," continuing: 

Even non-violent Muslims and Christians, like Aslan and myself, understand that we hold aggressively oppositional views—particularly about Jesus. National news coverage of “Zealot” has ignored this conflict of interest.

But Jesus is more than just a "prophet type" in Islam. He's a straight-up prophet, and one of the most important ones. Aside from the (religiously important) issue of his divine nature, Islam and Christianity tell basically the same story on Jesus. Despite Fox News's repeated concern about Aslan's Muslim faith, an actual religious bias on his part would have probably produced a more palatable book for some Christian readers than the one he actually did write. But while Aslan's faith is a useful tool for critics to frame their beef with the book, it's not really their main argument. The problem, it seems, is that the book contradicts their interpretation of Christianity at all. 

To many conservative Christians, the story of Jesus, laid out in the Gospels, was written exactly and only to affirm Jesus's divinity. Reading the Gospels are an act of devotion, and maybe of conversion. Adherents have a long tradition of acting out the story of Jesus's life as a religious exercise. To tell the story of Jesus without reaffirming that he is the Christ is, for many, to miss the point of Jesus's entire life and death (and resurrection if you're a believer). That doesn't mean that conservative Christians are against histories of Jesus as a category of writing. They just have to be done correctly, including with the correct intent. There are plenty of examples of books, popular among conservative Christians, that take an "evidence-based" approach to telling Jesus's story with the endgame of affirming his theological meaning, like Lee Strobel's The Case For Christ. 

Aslan critics are also attacking his "arrogance," specifically his "misrepresentation" of his academic credentials. This was, for instance, the main line of attack at Get Religion, a conservative-leaning and widely-read religion and media blog. But given that Religious Studies as a humanities field is inherently interdisciplinary — combining sociology, history, anthropology, and philosophy into one rhetorical melting pot — it's doubtful that very many religious studies scholars would really take issue with Aslan's representation of his own credentials (though some have pointed out where Aslan's scholarship falls short). His PhD, in the sociology of religion, is not a history degree as he'd said, which is somewhat misleading as David A. Graham at The Atlantic explained earlier this week. But it does not provide a very fruitful line of attack against Azlan's ability to write a book about Jesus. For one thing, that attack unfairly opens up Green to criticism as well: Her degrees are in music and journalism, and not religion.

So far, the defense of Fox News has been mainly from Fox News itself, but that could change as critics continue to frame Aslan's book as an attack on Christianity. Bream, in her segment today, said that Fox was going to keep on the Aslan offensive when she teased the content of an upcoming segment: "We know that there are a lot of folks out there who are happy to criticize Christian viewpoints and faith, and we have a story coming up on that as well." And while the discussion about Aslan's book is more and more taking on the Fight Club rules approach to talking about Aslan's book, it's plausible that Aslan, whose book skyrocketed in sales following Fox News's attack, will welcome all the return volleys he gets.  

       

Mark Wahlberg Goes to War, Again

The first trailer for Peter Berg's action drama Lone Survivor was released today, giving us a glimpse of Mark Wahlberg, Taylor Kitsch, Ben Foster, and Emile Hirsch as NAVY Seals on a real-life doomed mission in Afghanistan. (The title is Lone Survivor. It doesn't end well.) From the trailer it looks like a lot of brothers-in-arms type stuff, with maybe a little nod to the complexities and moral gray areas of war, this strange war in particular. Speaking of complexities, some questions have been raised about the accuracy of the book, written by the lone survivor, that the movie is based on, but none of that seems to factor in here. Which, really, is no surprise. Though, here's hoping that ultimately on the Peter Berg thoughtfulness scale, this is way more Friday Night Lights than it is, say, The Kingdom, an aggressively jingo movie that managed to insult pretty much everyone involved. This trailer looks mostly sensitive to such matters, but that doesn't mean much. Come on, Berg. Don't Kingdom us again.

On the complete opposite of the movie spectrum, Ethan Hawke is reteaming with the director of his video store Hamlet — remember that, that cool/silly thing from 13 long years ago? — to do a modern take on Cymbeline. It'll be about cops vs. drug dealers and is described as "Sons of Anarchy meets ROMEO + JULIET." Which... that's not really fair, is it? You can't describe a modern take on Shakespeare using another modern take on Shakespeare, can you? Ah well. The real head-scratcher here is... Cymbeline? Of all the Shakespeare plays, you're going with Cymbeline? I mean, it's hard to get people to freaking Macbeth. And people have heard of that one! Why not just go and do Timon of Athens if you're gonna go random? Go for the gusto! Anyway, it's nice that Ethan Hawke has maintained his commitment to theater-y things in between doing all the horror movies that are clearly making him big bucks. He's a savvy guy, that Ethan Hawke. Who would have known in 1993? [Deadline]

Huh. Bella Thorne, from a Disney Channel program called Shake It Up! (on which she stars with a mystical alien named Zendaya), has been cast in the movie version of Alexander and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day, the beloved children's book that should not be a movie. And it really should not be a movie featuring Bella freaking Thorne as "the gooey girlfriend of Alexander’s very cool older brother." Excuse me if I'm mistaken, but is there a "very cool older brother" or a "gooey girlfriend" in the book? I feel like there is not! So I feel like this movie may be pulling a fast one on us and trying to shoehorn some t(w)een interest into this decidedly for-children story. Which is unacceptable! Shut the thing down. Sorry, Miguel Arteta. Find another movie to direct. This plug is being pulled. [The Hollywood Reporter]

Goldie Hawn's son and Kate Hudson's brother, Oliver Hudson, has been cast in a "major recurring role" on the next season of Nashville. Hudson, who once played the horrible literary bullshit-spouting bartender love interest of Joey Potter on Dawson's Creek, will play "Jeff, a charming, audacious, take-no-prisoners businessman who promises to shake things up in Nashville." Ah, OK. So is he a love interest for Connie Britton? Probably. (Does she have another love interest at the moment? I'm behind on the show.) Or maybe he's a love interest for Chris Carmack, who was just made a regular?? The possibilities are endless! I gotta start watching this damn show again. [Deadline]

Seth Meyers was at TCAs today, talking about his upcoming gig hosting Late Night, once Jimmy Fallon movies to Tonight. Some of the tidbits he revealed is that the show might be four nights a week instead of five, he might keep some of Weekend Update's desk sketch bits, and, most interestingly, they're going to have to get creative with guests. See, because Fallon and Meyers will both be in New York, the celebrity pool will be smaller. So, Meyers said, things might be a bit different: "There is a chance that with bookings, we're going to have to try to find people that we find interesting more than maybe [guests] people are clamoring to see. But that's something we look forward to doing, which is find the sorts of guests who can maybe come back once a month." That could be cool, right? Man, late night is going to look totally different in like seven months. Imagine that. Imagine that! Bill Carter's head is going to explode. [Vulture]