Eat The Press

For a long while, the inspiring tale of Mark Sanford's Latin American jaunt on or near "the sex line" had gripped America with its romantic melodrama. You can read more about it in the forthcoming Tropic Of Capricorn 2: Buenos Aires Nights, by Henry Miller. But as much as the heart wants more from the Mark Sanford story, like "positions explored" and "quantity of white zinfandel consumed," it's now time for the body to get really interested in this whole John Ensign affair story.

So, the dilly: John Ensign, Nevada Senator, copped to having an affair with Cynthia Hampton, who was for a time on his campaign staff. The television media got all worked up about it, saying things like, "This is bad news for Ensign, one of the GOP's presidential contenders." And people like me replied, "Wait! John Ensign is a presidential contender?" later adding, "Seriously, you can't possibly think this guy was ever going to be a presidential contender." And Ensign was thought to be working out all his difficulties with some group called the "C Street Foundation," which describes itself as a "Bible study group" but is actually some sort of detox facility for Congresspersons who are way into sexcapades.

That's when the even shinier Mark Sanford story hit the news, along with Sarah Palin's "Oration On The Verbal Frappe Currently Coursing Out Of My Mouth In Alaska, Because I Have No Political Advisers Who Are Worth A Good God Damn." And Marion Barry straight up stalked a lady, in DC, because he is crazypants. But now: Ensign!

Driving Ensign back into the news are escalating exchanges between Hampton's husband and Ensign's allies over who got paid how much and for what, why, and when. It's all crazy confusing, the sex-scandal equivalent of the Purple Ticket Inauguration fiasco, but I think we have a handle on it:

-- Yesterday, Hampton's husband said that Hampton was paid $25,000 in severance when she left Ensign's campaign.

-- Ensign's camp disclosed that Ensign's parents had actually paid out $96,000 to the Hamptons. But not because anyone wanted this affair kept a secret! No, no! Ensign's parents "decided to make the gifts out of concern for the well-being of long-time family friends during a difficult time," and these monies were "consistent with a pattern of generosity by the Ensign family to the Hamptons and others." So, TOTALLY NOT some kind of end-run around ethics requirements at all! What grown up senator wouldn't want his mom and dad giving large sums of monies to random friends, anyway?

-- Doug Hampton continued to make claims that he and Ensign were negotiating further payments, in the "millions of dollars." Ensign's camp, all the while, has insisted that Doug Hampton was making "exorbitant demands for cash and other financial benefits." Doug Hampton also released letter between Ensign and Cindy Hampton, and granted TV interviews that further stirred the pot.

-- Then, Doug Hampton said that Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn was present, with Doug Hampton, at some sort of "meeting"/intervention to cure Ensign of his sexlexia and give the Hamptons all manner of scrilla for their trouble. In an interview, Hampton said, "These men were the ones that said, 'What we need to do is get Doug Hampton's home paid for, and we need to get Doug Hampton some money. We need to get his family to Colorado.'" Colorado being on the other side of the "sex line."

-- Coburn then said that Hampton was not telling the truth:

"John Ensign hasn't put me in a tough position at all," said Coburn, a housemate of Ensign's at a Capitol Hill home owned by a Christian fellowship. "The person that's deceiving now is Doug. And you all need to go do the investigation now on that side of it and quit asking us and ask what's the motivation here."

-- And Coburn, naturally blamed the media for all of this: "You've got two families that are back together and you guys are going to help tear them apart. What do you think their kids are thinking about what you're writing right now? You're helping tear apart two families that are back together -- you need to quit."

-- But now, Republicans are starting to sour on Ensign, big time:

Republican Sen. John Cornyn of Texas said of Ensign's situation: "It's not good." Cornyn took over for Ensign after the 2008 elections as head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, which is charged with getting Republicans elected. Cornyn said he has heard no talk of Ensign stepping down.

And, on top of that, there are "raw feelings cited" among Ensign supporters, which underscores the point: LUBE IS IMPORTANT. There: not afraid to be servicey!

-- And, just to cap things off, Ensign is now left to fend off charges that he actually committed a crime in all this mess:

Also today, a Washington ethics group today called for a Department of Justice criminal investigation into whether Ensign gave his mistress considerably more than $25,000 in severance pay that may have gone unreported.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) said it has called on Attorney General Eric Holder to order a criminal investigation after Doug Hampton disclosed the severance payment in an interview Wednesday.

"As despicable as Sen. Ensign's conduct has been, it now appears it also may have been criminal," said Melanie Sloan, executive director of CREW. "The Department of Justice has a responsibility to ensure that all Americans - even high level political officials - are held accountable for their actions."

So there you have it! Seems like only weeks ago that Mark Sanford had eclipsed Ensign's scandal as the more interesting one. Now, Sanford's coming off looking better, because of the increasing perception that his was something of a heartfelt, romantic struggle. There's poetry and love letters and flowery exhortations and garment-rending. Meanwhile, all the parties in the Ensign case, mucking about over money, are driving the story in a tawdrier and less-relatable direction. That said, as a citizen roaming the streets tonight, the only one you should really worry about encountering is Marion Barry.

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

MSNBC's Joe Scarborough has made it a regular habit to catch the vapors on air after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi criticized the Central Intelligence Agency. Now he's lamenting that Nancy Pelosi, "a friend of mine from Congress" has "caught a lot of grief" for that criticism. The big takeaway? Starbucks apparently has a Rohypnol Frappuccino.

[WATCH]

From the first word, to the last, I concur with the Washington Independent's Spencer Ackerman:

I carry no brief for Pelosi, and Pelosi could indeed be misrepresenting what CIA actually briefed to her, even though the additional questions about its briefing schedule are numerous. But if Scarborough had bothered reading, say, an acclaimed history of the CIA, he would immediately see that it's extremely well documented that the CIA has often misled Congress about sensitive intelligence programs. Basic due diligence, unfortunately, would get in the way of his preferred storyline, so don't expect anything like this latest self-induced humiliation to prompt an on-air reflection of the way "Morning Joe" operates. The unaccountable ability of some cable TV hosts to just pretend to their audiences like they know what they're talking about is really staggering.

In the first place, I remember how inane it was that anyone in the media was shocked to hear someone suggest that the CIA had been less than truthful. There's a long and proud and bipartisan history of that, and yet somehow Pelosi ended up as an unprecedented and shocking agency critic.

But secondly, there's this whole issue of "TV hosts... pretend[ing] to their audiences like they know what they're talking about." Spencer Ackerman, for example, has been to Iraq, he's been to Afghanistan, he's interviewed David Petraeus, he's up on all the current writing, knows all the major players, and attends every picayune foreign policy conference and congressional hearing that comes along. To the best of knowledge, he's never, ever been zinged by Zbigniew Brzezinski. He's precisely the sort of person that Scarborough could bring onto his show to present insight and information from a highly informed perspective. Yet, to Scarborough, Ackerman is just a Cheeto-eating, basement-dwelling blogger, with no credibility. Oh well, Spencer's not the one literally contradicting himself on cable teevee.

MORE:
Anything You'd Like to Apologize For, 'Morning Joe?' [The Washington Independent]

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

Apparently, the powerful General Motors company has the luxury of limiting the demographic groups to which they must appeal, because after posting several gay-themed Camaro advertisements to YouTube, said advertisements have now been pulled. (It seems that these spots might have also been some sort of Transformers: Revenge Of The Fallen tie-in, which would probably make sense to me if I'd seen the movie, which I haven't because of repeated warnings that it will turn my brain to paste.)

From 365 Gay:

General Motors has ordered all videos created for their Chevrolet "Gay Day at the Movies" promotion be removed from You Tube. The videos, which featured amateur footage of two "go go boys" washing a Camaro, were deemed inappropriate by GM.

"The video was not appropriate and not in good taste," said GM spokesman Dave Barthmuss. The videos were seen as a bad representation for the company by GM executives said Barthmuss.

Also widely seen as giving General Motors a "bad representation": the cars manufactured by General Motors.

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

I have wonderful news to report to everyone! Apparently I have woken up today in a parallel universe, where the sun is shining and the birds are singing and my coffee tastes like malted orgasm. There's something called a "Dylan Ratigan" on my teevee, asking shouty sports pundit Stephen A. Smith about auto bailouts, so it's not like EVERYTHING makes perfect sense, but here's the real good news! Apparently, the financial collapse in the derivatives market never happened! EVERYTHING OLD IS NEW AGAIN AND WILL SUCK AGAIN, YAY!

From this bizarro universe's Bloomberg:

Morgan Stanley plans to repackage a downgraded collateralized debt obligation backed by leveraged loans into new securities with AAA ratings in the first transaction of its kind, said two people familiar with the sale.

Morgan Stanley is selling $87.1 million of securities that it expects to receive top AAA ratings and $42.9 million of notes graded Baa2, the second-lowest investment grade by Moody's Investors Service, according to marketing documents obtained by Bloomberg News. The bonds were created from Greywolf CLO I Ltd., a CDO arranged in January 2007 by Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and managed by Greywolf Capital Management LP, an investment firm based in Purchase, New York.

Ahh, apparently this parallel universe's version of Choire Sicha is just as critical of these geniuses as he is in the real one. This is blockquoted for maximum sarcasm:

HOW COULD THIS IDEA FAIL? How could anyone not want to put their money in this? This is so dizzying, it's like it is 2003 outside, and everything is new and shiny again.

You know what is going to be neat? Seeing which ratings agency bites first at giving this turd sandwich a AAA rating! All of us in this parallel universe plan on running around the streets with our pants off that day, because there are no consequences for failure, ever, apparently.

UPDATE, from my exasperated father, who writes:

It will be interesting to see who buys this shit but we may never know. Some people never learn. BUT! If you offer it at a price and a rate, somebody can be found to speculate on anything, and if you sell it to somebody connected or to someone who is "too big to fail"...well we have already proven that we can handle the "moral hazard" argument. Here we go again. Look at the names associated with all this. And the one you have to wonder about the most is the rating's agency, Moody's. They must feel like they are invisible and bullet-proof because they certainly have escaped real scrutiny in all of this that has just passed. And! They are paid by the issuers to give them a rating on this shit. Not much independence there!

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

Yesterday, we reported that Consumer Watchdog had obtained, and provided satiric annotations for, a "spin document" that Google had presented as a part of a June 18th hearing before Congress. At issue was Google's practice of "behavioral advertising," and the possibility that consumers would be given, as a part of government regulation, the opportunity to "opt in" or "opt out" of being surveyed by Google's invasive mining of user browser habits, which they use to serve up online advertising.

At the time, I remarked that "'Confidential' 'spin documents' on transparency and privacy are awesome monuments to irony." But hey! Google has now posted those documents online themselves, fresh for your consumption today! But, there's a tiny little twist: They've deleted the words "GOOGLE CONFIDENTIAL."

Here is the original cover page:

And here's what's been made available for public consumption:

Well, it's a good nod to almost-transparency, anyway. But just so you remember: They'd have preferred you not see these materials at all! And Consumer Watchdog President Jamie Court remains concerned:

Google is becoming more Orwellian every day in order to perpetuate the myth they are an open and transparent company. In this case, they are rewriting history by only putting the presentation forward after the exposure, failing to mention the impetus and altering the documents in the process to eliminate the "confidential" and "proprietary" tag. It's hard to trust a company with our most sensitive data when they go to such lengths to twist the truth. Google owes us an explanation of who met on capitol hill with whom, and whether or not they were registered lobbyists.

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

Louisiana Rep. John Fleming (R) has put up a guest post at TownHall, in which he professes to be "amazed at the number of bureaucrats in this House who are quick to claim a government-run health care plan is the reform this country needs." I'm not sure why he's so amazed by this. The public option is astoundingly popular with the American people. I'm rather amazed that so many of the people's representatives, on both sides of the aisle, seem to be ignorant of this.

That said, Fleming makes a good point here:

In response to this, I have offered a resolution that will offer members of Congress an opportunity to put their money where their mouth is, and urge their colleagues who vote for legislation creating a government-run health care plan to lead by example and enroll themselves in the same public plan.

Under the current draft of the Democrat health care legislation, members of Congress are curiously exempt from the government-run health care option, keeping their existing health plans and services on Capitol Hill. If Members of Congress believe so strongly that government-run health care is the best solution for hard working American families, I think it only fitting that Americans see them lead the way. Public servants should always be accountable and responsible for what they are advocating, and I challenge the American people to demand this from their representatives.

I can definitely see the merits in this. Legislators should lead by example, and it would be comforting to see some of them throwing in their lot with the American people.

But turnabout is fair play, isn't it? If public servants should "always be accountable and responsible for what they are advocating," then those who believe that the current health care system and health insurance models truly are "the best in the world," should jolly well forswear the insurance plan they receive from the taxpayers and join the rest of us in the world of private insurance. There are over 1,000 options from which to choose!

See, to my mind, one of the problems we face as Congress crafts these policies for the rest of us, is that Congresscritters are a terribly overcoddled class of people. Their needs are provided for by us, and they've added a ton of advantages that all but assure their re-election. And even on the rare occurrence where they lose their jobs, there's a whole panoply of welfare awaiting them in the worlds of lobbying and corporate boards and think tanks. Unlike most U.S. citizens, they live in what can accurately be described as a consequence-free environment, and I think the country would be far better off if our elected officials and their families were the first to be drafted in war, and the last to be insured in health.

So, this Fleming fellow's call for his colleagues to demonstrate some stern stuff moves me, powerfully! Here's my email, you private insurance fans in Congress! Please drop me a line and tell me all about how you're going to give up your Congressional benefits and enroll in private insurance. You public option supporters should do the same! Let me know, and I shall very proudly publicize your commitment to the world.

Representative Fleming, why don't you start?

[H/T: Sahil Kapur]

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

Seems like only yesterday I was talking about the way Sean Hannity cooks up some news, for his teevee show. It goes a little something like this:

1. President Barack Obama gives an interview to Major Garrett, where he mentions the role played by Lech Walesa in bringing about the end of the Cold War.

2. Sean Hannity cuts out the part where Obama mentions Lech Walesa, and airs the bowdlerized interview.

3. Sean Hannity yells about how Obama never mentioned Walesa, and yammers, "You may want to consider hitting the history books."

4. THERE ARE NEVER, EVER, EVER ANY CONSEQUENCES FOR PLAYING FOX VIEWERS FOR FOOLS.

That's about right! Anyway, yesterday, I mentioned how, in addition to the selective editing of the Garrett interview, Hannity had also worked the same bit of video prestidigitation with Obama's speech in Cairo, allowing the Fox News host to accuse the President of "giving 9/11 sympathizers a voice on the world stage." Jon Stewart, among others, very easily demonstrated the Hannity's falseness. But you know what? I forgot another classic example of Hannity's slippery splicing: Obama's speech in Europe! Luckily, Media Matters For America did up one of their delightful mashup videos, depicting this example:

[WATCH]

Is it fair to call these practices a "trend"? Actually, yes. And you haven't heard the half of it!

MORE:
Hannity makes a habit of distorting quotes to smear progressives [Media Matters]

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

I received something of a shock whilst riding into the office on the subway this morning: There, on the front page of the Washington Post, above the fold, bold as love, sat the word, "TORTURE." What was going on? I thought Dan Froomkin worked for us now!

As it turns out, there was a perfectly reasonable explanation. The story, by Steve Fainaru and William Booth is titled, "Mexico Accused of Torture in Drug War." Get it? MEXICO. The article goes on to describe accusations that have been hurled at the Mexican army as they pursue drug traffickers and the "cartels that continue to terrorize much of the country."

In Puerto Las Ollas, a mountain village of 50 people in the southern state of Guerrero, residents recounted how soldiers seeking information last month stuck needles under the fingernails of a disabled 37-year-old farmer, jabbed a knife into the back of his 13-year-old nephew, fired on a pastor, and stole food, milk, clothing and medication.

In Tijuana, across the border from San Diego, two dozen policemen who were arrested on drug charges in March alleged that, to extract confessions, soldiers beat them, held plastic bags over their heads until some lost consciousness, strapped their feet to a ceiling while dunking their heads in water and applied electric shocks, according to court documents, letters and interviews with their relatives and defense lawyers.

Obviously, there are questions:

1. These cartels are clearly defined as agents who "terrorize," and who are clearly causing a national security crisis in Mexico, and, by extension, the United States. And yet, the article seems to be slanted in such a way that it makes the Mexican authorities look like "the bad guys." What gives?

2. Despite the fact that the United States has clearly set a global precedent that allows authorities to take broad and often unsavory measures in legitimate pursuit of national security, and that this precedent has given rise to the term "enhanced interrogation techniques" to describe the actions taken in these cases, there is no mention of "enhanced interrogation techniques" anywhere in the article. There is a mention of "harsh measures," but it hardly balances out the 12 uses of the word "torture."

3. Among the accusers are "human rights groups." However, nowhere in the article are these groups properly identified as being from "the left" or "leftist." Without this identification, it's difficult for the reader to appreciate how much a part of the political fringe the opponents of torture are, something that comes standard issue in torture discussions about the United States.

It's very hard to fathom what happened to the journalism in this article. But if I had to hazard a guess, I imagine that the word "torture" was used because, unlike the Americans who invented or supported or deployed "enhanced interrogation techniques," there was very little chance that any of these Mexicans were ever going to find themselves in the awkward position of having to ask, "Why, Ms. Weymouth, this Malbec is delicious, what year is it?"

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

Consumer Watchdog -- which, as the name implies is a consumer watchdog organization -- is raising alarms over privacy concerns that have been brought to the fore as online search company Google engages in wheeling and dealing before the House Communications and Consumer Protection Subcommittee.

At issue is legislation that might affect Google's practice of "behavioral advertising," the process by which Google serves ads to users based upon personal information gleaned from individual users' browsing habits, which many deem invasive. Potentially, lawmakers could inhibit Google's ambitions in this area by making it possible for users to opt out of Google's meticulous tracking. Worse for the online giant is the possibility that users will have to opt in in order to be tracked in the first place. At the very least, Google might find itself subjected to a "Do Not Google" list, similar to the "Do Not Call" lists that have been applied to the telemarketing industry.

In their press release, Consumer Watchdog notes that their concerns have become magnified with the announcement that Google will be introducing their own operating system:

The question has grown more urgent with Google's announcement Wednesday that it will release a new operating system that moves currently computer-based functions to its proprietary Internet "cloud," said Consumer Watchdog. Congress is considering forcing Google to adopt an opt-in model where users must actively allow Google to collect browsing history and user data.

"The Justice Department should be worried when Google tries to obfuscate its data tracking capacity and reach rather than disclose all of it," said Judy Dugan, research director of Consumer Watchdog. "Congress should demand that Google stop tracking Americans' online behavior without their prior permission."

[...]

Google's new operating system could also comb users' stored documents for information on those "interest categories." The depth of this potential data collection is not mentioned in the Google spin document. ...Instead, it boasts repeatedly of Google's commitment to transparency and "user friendliness" in delivering the lucrative advertising.

In an interview with the Huffington Post, Jamie Court, president of the Consumer Watchdog, was explicit in his concerns: "No one knows more about Americans than Google...The FBI doesn't know as much about us as Google. That has to worry Congress as much as it should worry Americans as they learn about it." Regarding the proposed operating system, Court says, "People just don't get it that your documents are at Google, not on your computer," making those items subject to the same processes that power Google's "behavioral advertising."

To emphasize their point, Consumer Watchdog has obtained a confidential "spin document," thanks to "an anonymous industry insider who has previously provided other Google spin documents." In the first place, yes: "Confidential" "spin documents" on transparency and privacy are awesome monuments to irony. And the document in question, Consumer Watchdog believes, is "associated with a June 18 Congressional hearing that questioned online "behavioral advertising." What makes this better however, is that Consumer Watchdog has done their own "satirical annotation" of this "spin document." And the annotated document is full of fun Google facts, like the byzantine click odyssey one must go on to opt out of being served Google Ads! And the four hours of videos you need to watch to get briefed on privacy!

But the important part of the satiric annotation are the questions for lawmakers that are helpfully provided:

1. Why isn't Google's behavioral advertising opt-in rather than opt-out?

2. Why not prominently include a link allowing users to permanently opt-out of Google tracking?

3. 2008: Google says it has no plans to use behavioral advertising... [that] it doesn't work. What changed?

4. Is Google's behavioral advertising really about delivering more interesting ads or is it about expanding its data collection and targeting activities?

And, just for emphasis, they direct people to this video, by the hilarious comedy group The Big Honkin':

[WATCH]

READ THE ORIGINAL GOOGLE "SPIN DOCUMENT," HERE.

READ THE SATIRIC ANNOTATION, HERE.

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

OH NOES! What happened on Fox and Friends today, people? According to Gawker, the bright and shiny lights have once again dazzled Fox & Friends host Brian Kilmeade (the Brown-Haired Guy) into pure befuddlement, and this subsequently caused a series of idiot words to pour forth from his cakehole. And no one thought to stop him or force his head into a bucket of water because this is exactly how Roger Ailes drew it up on the whiteboard! I suppose it must be said: Maybe Morning Joe's Starbucks sponsorship should be accepted as a reward for having some sort of social conscience.

Jesus, this Brown-Haired Guy. He is like a murder of idiot crows, stuffed into an anthropomorphic flesh bag, that somehow successfully filled out a W-4 form and wandered onto a soundstage where he was adopted as a pet. From time to time, he produces words, and today, as his colleagues attempted to discuss a study that suggested that couples who enjoy long marriages showed a reduced tendency to develop Alzheimer's disease, he came up with these insane, vaguely racial ramblings:

BROWN HAIRED GUY: We keep marrying other species and other ethnics--

GRETCHEN CARLSON: Are you sure you are not suffering from some of the causes of dementia right now?

BROWN HAIRED GUY: The problem is the Swedes have pure genes. They marry other Swedes, that's the rule. Finns marry other Finns; they have a pure society. In America we marry everybody. We will marry Italians and Irish.

DAVE BRIGGS: This study does not apply?

BROWN HAIRED GUY: Does not apply to us.

[pause]

DAVE BRIGGS: Huh.

[WATCH, via Salon.com]

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

Whenever President Barack Obama goes abroad, cameras follow him, and record the things he says to people. Just as often, it seems, Fox's Sean Hannity takes the recordings made by those cameras and starts splicing and resplicing up a storm, in order to make it seem that Obama said a bunch of things that he didn't say. And then, armed with his cut-up, bowdlerized junk, Hannity plays his audience for fools.

Let's take Obama's trip to Russia, for example. Obama sat for an interview with Fox's White House Correspondent, Major Garrett. Hannity presented their exchange over Garrett's first question, like so:

HANNITY'S CUT:

GARRETT: In your speech this morning, you said the Cold War reached its conclusion because of the actions of many nations over many years. Mr. President, are the Russian sensitivities so fragile that you can't say the Cold War was won, the West won it, and it was led by a combination of Democratic and Republican American presidents?

OBAMA: There were a whole bunch of people throughout Eastern Europe who showed enormous courage, and I think that it is very important in this part of the world to acknowledge the degree to which people struggled for their own freedom. We don't have to diminish other people in order to recognize our role in that history.

Hannity, predictably, produced an outraged bleat:

HANNITY: Unbelievable. Now, that's interesting, because Lech Walesa, the leader of the Polish Solidarity Movement, said this about the end of the Cold War; he said, quote: "We in Poland took him, Ronald Reagan, so personally. Why? Because we owe him our liberty. Now this can't be said often enough by people who lived under oppression for half a century." Mr. President, if I were you, you may want to consider hitting the history books maybe before your next foreign trip.

[WATCH]

Yeah! Burn! Shouldn't Barack Obama be able to demonstrate knowledge of Lech Walesa and the contributions of American presidents in bringing about the end of the Cold War? HE SO TOTALLY SHOULD! The thing is, in reality, HE TOTALLY DID. Here's Fox News' own transcript of the interview:

REALITY:

GARRETT: In your speech this morning, you said the Cold War reached its conclusion because of the actions of many nations over many years. Mr. President, are the Russian sensitivities so fragile that you can't say the Cold War was won? The West won it? And it was led by a combination of Democratic and Republican American presidents?

OBAMA: Well, listen, the -- I think that you just cut out Lech Walesa and the Poles. You just cut out Havel and the Czechs. There were a whole bunch of people throughout Eastern Europe who showed enormous courage. And I think that it is very important in this part of the world to acknowledge the degree to which people struggled for their own freedom. I'm very proud of the traditions of Democratic and Republican presidents to lift the Iron Curtain. But, you know, we don't have to diminish other people in order to recognize our role in that history.

This is definitely not the first time this has happened! After Obama delivered his speech in Cairo, Hannity and his punk-ass scissors were all snippety-snip on the events of the real world, too. In the wake of that speech, Hannity asserted that Obama had "given 9/11 sympathizers a voice on the world stage." But again, it was a nifty bit of selective editing, which Jon Stewart and his Daily Show researchers famously called Hannity out on, not that Hannity ever has to face consequences!

HANNITY'S CUT:

OBAMA: I'm aware that there's still some who would question, or even justify the offense of 9/11.

REALITY:

OBAMA: I'm aware that there's still some who would question, or even justify the offense of 9/11. But let us be clear. Al Qaeda killed nearly three thousand people on that day. The victims were innocent men, women and children from America and many other nations who had done nothing to harm anybody. And yet Al Qaeda chose to ruthlessly murder these people, claimed credit for the attack, and even now states their determination to kill on a massive scale. They have affiliates in many countries and are trying to expand their reach. These are not opinions to be debated; these are facts to be dealt with.

Naturally, it's not surprising at all to learn that the world we live in is a far fouler place after Sean Hannity has had his way with it.

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

So, look back at the presidential campaign when President Barack Obama promised to do away with the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" regulation, which forces everyone in the armed service to pretend that there are no gays and lesbians serving our nation with distinction. From time to time, the regulation even requires the military to discharge perfectly capable soldiers from their duties. Since the campaign, however, Obama has been tenacious in his passivity, opting to not take direct action to end the regulation, preferring to let Congress decide the matter. I wonder what James Pietrangelo II, who was discharged from the Army under DADT, thinks about all of this?

"He's a coward, a bigot and a pathological liar...This is a guy who spent more time picking out his dog, Bo, and playing with him on the White House lawn than he has working for equality for gay people...If there were millions of black people as second-class citizens, or millions of Jews or Irish, he would have acted immediately."

That about sums it up! Luckily for Pietrangelo, someone has decided to take lead on this issue: Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-Penn.). Brandon Friedman, over at VetVoice, has an email that Murphy sent out to supporters this morning:

In less than an hour [10:00 AM], we will officially announce that I am taking over as the chief sponsor for The Military Readiness Enhancement Act -- the bill that will finally repeal the policy known as "Don't Ask,Don't Tell." I have been speaking out against for many years against "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" -- first as an ROTC cadet, then as a professor at West Point, and later as a candidate and a congressman. To now take the lead on such an important piece of legislation is an honor and a privilege beyond words.

This is going to be a busy day full of meetings and interviews. We'll even be launching a new website dedicated to this issue: LetThemServe.com. But before it all got started I wanted to thank you for giving me the opportunity to stand up and fight for the values we all believe in. I couldn't do this without you, and I'll never forget that.

Friedman writes: "Given that the troops have been harmed by this law, it's good to see a soldier leading the way on the repeal."

I just think it's good to see anyone leading the way on this.

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

Sweet sassy molassey! Mike DeBonis of the Washington City Paper has WON THE AFTERNOON with this epic slice of awesomeness, in which he reveals many lengthy voicemails that former D.C. Mayor/current D.C. Councilmember Marion Barry left for his paramour-slash-Independence Day stalking victim, and they are a magical delight in these troubled times.

If you missed this story, over the holiday weekend, Barry was picked up by the U.S. Park Police, who are tasked with protecting residents and guests of the District of Columbia from Barry at all times. Barry was cited for misdemeanor stalking, after the police were called to the scene by his stalkee, political consultant and Barry ex-girlfriend Donna Watts-Brighthaupt. According to reports, Barry had hoped to "cross the sex line" with Watts-Brighthaupt on a trip to Rehoboth Beach, which is Washington, DC's version of Argentina.

DeBonis has fantastic details of the Barry/Watts-Brighthaupt relationship, and the ebbs and flows of their zany passions for one another:

Throughout, the telenovela dynamic was constant, with the two regularly fighting, only to make up within days or hours, sometimes minutes. The tussles happened in private and in public -- in an incident recounted to LL by an independent source, a verbal scuffle between the two in Vegas erupted into blows, right in the lobby of the Paris hotel. "She told me she put a shellacking on him," [ex-husband Delonta] Brighthaupt says.

Go here, with all deliberate haste, to enjoy these vocal samples that will all hopefully find their way onto Wale's next mixtape. DeBonis thoughtfully provides transcripts, which, I'm sure you will agree, force all of us to revisit the soulful and poetic love-notes of South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford, who clearly should be respected for the relative restraint he showed while deploying his stimulus package. While they are all sublime, this clip is going to be everyone's personal favorite:

Recorded argument between Watts-Brighthaupt and Barry: Watts-Brighthaupt: Why you saying he fuck me like you did?...Why you sayin' he has my credit fucked up, and you know. I think you telling your friends, sayin' I want a man who fucked me up, fucked my credit up, got me to lose my house and she keep goin' back to that man...You want me to think I'm crazy...All I'm trying to saying is I forgive. You put me out in Denver cause I wouldn't suck your dick. You put me out in Denver! You made me have to fuck your ass up in the middle of a [unintelligible]. We were like fuckin' Tina and Ike Turner. And I forgive. Alright you just wastin my damn time?...I can't believe this....you always... you don't think about other people's time. You're inconsiderate...

This should have absolutely been the Washington DC commemorative quarter, obviously.

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

Sarabeth at 1115.org draws attention to this downright scary story from CNN, detailing how investigators, sent to test security protocols at all sorts of federal buildings, were able to smuggle bomb parts into these facilities, put them together, and just walk all over the place, carrying bombs, just for the thrill of it!

The investigators then assembled the bombs in restrooms and freely entered numerous government offices while carrying the devices in briefcases, the report said.

The buildings contained offices of several federal lawmakers as well as agencies within the departments of State, Justice and Homeland Security, which is responsible for safeguarding federal office buildings.

This is almost as bad as that time that "God" smuggled a "Hurricane Katrina" into the United States, using this subterfuge called "meteorology."

Anyway, what the investigators did was bonkers:

In a videotape obtained by CNN, a covert GAO inspector places a bag containing bomb components on an X-ray machine conveyor belt and then walks through a magnetometer at an unidentified federal building. Unlike some covert tests that use simulated explosives, the GAO used actual bomb components in the test and publicly available information "to identify a type of device that a terrorist could use" to damage a building.

"The (improvised explosive device) was made up of two parts -- a liquid explosive and a low-yield detonator -- and included a variety of materials not typically brought into a federal facility by an employee or the public," the report says. Investigators obtained the components at local stores and over the Internet for less than $150, the report says.

After the components were smuggled into the building and assembled, the GAO says, it took steps to ensure the device would not explode. But to demonstrate the device's destructive power, the GAO videotaped the detonation of several devices at a remote site.

Also, it turns out that the guards hired to protect these facilities are similarly incompetent at protecting our nation's most vital resource -- babies:

The GAO also released a photograph of a guard asleep at his post and detailed an instance in which a woman placed an infant in a carrier on an X-ray machine while retrieving identification. Because the guard was not paying attention and the machine's safety features had been disabled, the infant was sent through the X-ray machine, according to the report.

This news precedes a GAO report that will be released into the wilds of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Hey! Roland Burris is on this committee! I feel safer already!

Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.), who chairs the committee, said that the results of these tests were "simply unacceptable." Ranking minority member Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) suggested that the tests revealed "a disturbing pattern by the Federal Protective Service of poor training, lapsed documentation, lax management, inconsistent enforcement of security standards and little rigor."

Then there's this part:

In one case, the GAO report says, a guard was caught using government computers to manage a for-profit adult Web site.

So, that's what Collins means when she says there was a "little rigor."

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

Via Wonkette comes the news that former Virginia senator and mutterer of racist exotica George Allen is going to be writing a book, and that book is going to be titled The Triumph Of Character. This, naturally, raises the question: What does George Allen know about character and/or triumph and/or writing books? Who knows? But with every GOP contender for 2012 quitting his job or taking off on foreign sexcapades or being named "Haley Barbour," the time is not right for George Allen to Establish A Narrative(TM) and bring his Bold, New Ideas(TM) to the political conversation.

But what a narrative! Wonkette has the publisher's description of the book, which I'm recommending for next year's online blog-book craze "Extremely Finite Summer":

In The Triumph of Character, Allen brings together two all-American passions--politics and sports--and reveals what Washington could learn from the enduring principles found in athletic competition and team sports. Having spent the better part of his life with one foot in both the world of sports and the world of politics, Allen will draw parallels and contrasts between the two arenas. Using his own engaging and entertaining personal stories, Allen will illustrate how "characters with character" in the meritocracy of sports can provide principled, competitive examples of the ways to surmount challenges facing America.

Politico's Ben Smith makes note of the way the book will put Allen's "football...prowess at UVA" to good use, but I think I'd better point out that in terms of UVA Football, "prowess" is a relative term.

As near as I can tell, Allen was the quarterback of the UVA football team in 1972 and 1973, very much before the time frame known by UVA Students as the "George Welsh Era," which is also known as "The Era Where UVA Stopped Sucking Out Loud, Tremendously, At Football." The Cavaliers posted 4-7 records during Allen's time there, which actually were some boom years for Virginia, if we're talking about the 1970s. That said, this was back during the time that Virginia fans used to celebrate each, rare, first down by getting blinding drunk and then puking all over each other, for weeks and weeks, just the way founder Thomas Jefferson intended.

Anyway, I can't wait for the "Macaca" chapter, because remember, this book is about the triumph of character, people.

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]