In the clip above, Tareq Salahi tells Matt Lauer that he and his wife were not crashers, and that they've "been misrepresented by the media and other paparazzi forums." (Paparazzi forums?) The curiously blank-faced Michaele Salahi claims that their lives have been destroyed by the experience — she says, "everything we worked for, Matt. For me, 44 years, just destroyed." It's an interesting statement, given that the Salahis' stunt has actually given them the national fame they apparently craved — but of course, they swear it wasn't a stunt at all. The pair say they're not at liberty to discuss how they were actually invited to the state dinner, so their current evidence for their innocence is the lame assertion that "no one" would try to crash a party at the White House. Michaele confusingly explains, "the White House, it is the house, and no one would do that." (Irony alert: Tareq also claims, "Our homes have been invaded.") Then they say some vague shit about how they're "working with the Secret Service" and finish up with the claim that they'll soon be "completely exonerated."

Of course, pretty much everyone else involved is sticking to the story that the Salahis are complete charlatans. They mention emails that will exonerate them — their correspondent in these emails may be Michele Jones, special assistant to the secretary of defense, who says she actually told them they weren't invited. Jones elaborates,

I did not state at any time, or imply that I had tickets for ANY portion of the evening's events. I specifically stated that they did not have tickets and in fact that I did not have the authority to authorize attendance, admittance or access to any part of the evening's activities. Even though I informed them of this, they still decided to come.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs also disputes the Salahis' version of events, telling Meredith Vieira that "this wasn't a misunderstanding," Gibbs said. "You don't show up at the White House as a misunderstanding." Furthermore, Gibbs says both Barack and Michelle Obama are angry about the Salahis' unauthorized attendance. Though some blame social secretary Desiree Rogers for not posting a representative from her office at the White House East Gate, Gibbs points out that the Secret Service could easily have checked with the social office about guests, and did not do so. He says,

I appreciate the observation that somebody could or could not have been at a certain gate. But again, you could pick up the phone…You don't have to be standing in my office for me to convey information to you.

In a teaser for the Today appearance, Tareq Salahi says "the truth will soon come out." But at least for now, the truth appears to be that White House security procedures were lax enough to allow a couple who had been specifically told they weren't invited to attend a state dinner and shake hands with the President. It's worth asking whether Michele Jones knew about the Salahis' history — they reportedly previously crashed the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation Dinner, though of course they claim they were also invited to that — and whether she ought to have informed the Secret Service that they were trying to finagle their way in. But whatever Jones's involvement, the fact remains that everyone in America is lucky that the Salahis were simply fame-whores with no more serious plans than getting on a reality show. While their inarticulate performance on Today and their ludicrous past — maybe we should all check out family albums to make sure they didn't crash our parties — are amusing, the fact remains that they committed a very serious security breach. It's no wonder the Adminstration is angry.

Salahis: "We Were Invited, Not Crashers" [MSNBC]
Salahis Sought Gala Access Through A Pentagon Door [Washington Post]
Breach Ups Scrutiny On Social Office [Politico]
Have Salahis Done This Before? [Politico]
On NBC, Virginia Couple Denies Crashing State Dinner [USA Today]

The whole lame conversation starts at 2:48 (video is below), when Curry references a Washington Post article from last month that said Clinton "is largely invisible on the big issues that dominate the foreign policy agenda, including the war in Afghanistan, the attempt to engage Iran and efforts to address the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." The article, by Glenn Kessler, is actually much more nuanced than Curry lets on, pointing out that Clinton may actually be unusually independent for a Secretary of State, pursuing her own priorities and showing unprecedented (and sometimes impolitic) directness in her public statements. But Curry reinterprets Kessler's piece to mean that "the highest-ranking woman in the United States [is] having to fight against being marginalized."

It's a little hard for Clinton to break through Curry's interruptions, but she responds gracefully, saying that allegations of marginalization are "absurd" and that, "I believe in delegating power [...] I would be irresponsible and negligent were I to say, 'Oh no, everything must come to me.'" Sounds a lot like the woman of whom Richard C. Holbrooke, special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, told Kessler, "She is collaborative by nature and totally secure." But Curry still seems determined to portray her as a woman scorned who wishes she had Obama's job. Memo to Curry: if you're really worried about people marginalizing "the highest-ranking woman in the country," try asking her some real questions instead of harping on fake controversy.

Marginalization Talk 'Absurd,' Clinton Says [NBC]
A Team Player Who Stands Apart [Washington Post]

You know what? At the end of the day, I don't care: trash your dress, paint your pregnant belly, eat your placenta. Choose your choices, however inexplicable, dubious and narcissistic. There's nothing wrong with this "trend", which one photographer describes as "a more creative way to express yourself...in a way you can't on your wedding day" by having yourself photographed covering your virginal, pricey Big Day glad-rags with paint or mud or axel grease. According to another photographer, it plays with the idea that the bride is a "pure" an untouchable creature - this, like the Real Housewives' revelatory "alter ego" portraits, presumably shows the woman in all her two-faceted complexity.

Says one defiant bride, while some people might consider it "destroying something sacred," she regards this as a means of making a work of art. Well, maybe some do consider it a desecration - but it's not the gesture's cutesy, expensive "boldness" that took me aback. It was just bad timing for harmless old "TTD" that I happened, on a long flight yesterday, to run across a piece in British Marie-Claire about a 25-year-old American woman who moved to war-torn Uganda to do relief work in a refugee camp, met and married a young Ugandan minister, and with him set up an organization that helped couples in Pader have a "group wedding" - a seemingly modest goal with big implications. First of all, almost all of the women had been raped by rebels - some held as "wives" - and had thought they'd never marry as a result. Then, having fallen in love, many of the grooms were unable to come up with the traditional dowry, let alone the trappings of a wedding. And planning marriages amidst the chaos and despair of the camp was a challenge that the newly-married Katie Karpik appreciated. They raised the money for a wonderful wedding, and six couples were able to get married - in dresses donated by British women to an organization called Jireh Women. More than 50 gowns and bridesmaids dresses were donated, and Karpik says they'll continue to use the gowns for future weddings.

It's a deeply unfair comparison, and a manipulative one. I admit it. The two have nothing to do with each other. It's also, as I said, pure chance that I should read about this story in a glossy magazine while on vacation, and it takes some cheek to draw such a heavy-handed judgment, especially when during the same flight I cried real tears during Ghosts of Girlfriends Past. Because one thing's great doesn't make another bad, and I don't even think it's particularly fair here to bring up the Wedding Industry or Consumerism or, yes, the Economy. It might feel a little icky to see wanton destruction in the name of "art" and it might seem a slightly tone-deaf choice for the show, but hey, they've got hours to fill and "trends" to manufacture and people have the luxury of tuning out the Marmees for a few hours a week. And who wants to give all her presents to the Hummels? Just remember that there are options, and ones that can do much good. But tar and feather your gown in the name of self-expression, and I promise not to judge. Except, maybe, the couple who had their picture taken in the shallow grave. Which I feel confident panning on artistic grounds.

Jireh Women
Donating Wedding Dresses
My Big Fat Ugandan Wedding [Photoma]

When Karp "became another statistic," after a layoff, she started blogging about her life. This came to the notice of Elle's E. Jean Carroll and led to an internship, then a blog that's roused the ire of those who feel she's insufficiently homeless. "We should point out that your clothes are from Elle," says Kathy, which is nice, since the internship seems to be unpaid, and she's still homeless. Oh, and in case you, too, were wondering how Brianna achieves her hair color, she dyes her hair at the gym. Amazingly, the poised Karp maintains her considerable dignity throughout - no small feat with this crowd.
Homeless Blogger Scores A Job [MSNBC]

Jobless And Homeless, Blogger Scores Elle Job [MSNBC]

Earlier: Today In Homelessness & Fashion: An Internship, An Ill-Advised Photo Shoot

Earlier: Glamour Shocks Readers By Featuring Plus-Size Model's Belly

On GMA this morning, Danziger unconvincingly said, "We didn't make [Clarkson] look thinner. I added a little height, because I wanted the impact of that cover." Then she changed the subject, saying "you want a colorful cover." But obviously the controversy isn't about the color of Clarkson's top (which is nice, for the record) — it's about the fact that SELF's version of her body bears no resemblance to the truth. In response to criticisms like this, Danziger says, "you can love a person, love her body, and retouch a picture." Is that like "love the sinner, hate the sin?"

In the Today Show interview seen above, Danziger spouted even more crap. After assuring viewers that "we love Kelly for the confidence that she exudes from within," she explained that on a cover, "you want to capture the essence of you at your best." Apparently this essence is just a little bit smaller than your actual physical body. She also says, "everyone can love who they are from the inside out, and want to achieve your goals." But Clarkson has achieved her goals — she's confident in herself and her work, and has repeatedly said that she's happy with her body. So how does artificially changing the way she looks help her achieve anything, or inspire anyone else to?

Danziger continues being offensive for the rest of the segment. She says, "no one can make you feel bad, only you can feel bad inside yourself," which is a pretty irresponsible statement coming from a magazine that publishes unrealistic (and unreal) images of women, and then advertises products to supposedly help actual people look more like these images. In fact, what the Clarkson cover reveals is that despite SELF's "health" focus, it's basically in the business of making women feel bad, just like the more fashion-oriented women's magazines.

Plus-size model and More To Love host Emme, who appeared alongside Danziger, touched on this fact as well. She called for "beautiful, aspirational images, but not all one way." But why do cover images need to be "aspirational" at all? There's no reason that looking at a picture of a celebrity has to make us want to be different, except in so far as this desire sells products. The idea that magazine readers want "aspirational" content is so accepted that Emme even parrots it when she's arguing for a greater diversity of body types, but what's wrong with images that are just beautiful, or just interesting, fun, or inspiring? It's time for more people question the notion that we read magazines because we like feeling unsatisfied with our bodies and our lives.

Kelly Clarkson's Photo Retouched [MSNBC]
Kelly Clarkson's Cover Photo Flap [ABC]

Earlier: Kelly Clarkson Slimmed Down On Self Via Photoshop
Self Editors Explain Covers Aren't Supposed To Look Realistic

In a Today Show segment worthy of The Onion, a bemused-looking Ann Curry interviews Women's Health editor Michele Promaulayko and Dr. Shari Lusskin of NYU on this supposed phenomenon. Says Promaulayko (a former editor of Cosmo who once pumped her staff for more stories in the "dead bridesmaid" vein),

Big families are having a moment right now, it's very much in the zeitgeist.

After this little game of buzzword madlibs, Promaulayko continues,

There is sort of an addictive quality to being pregnant, there are a lot of things happening physiologically and psychologically that would drive a woman to keep doing this.

There is, of course, always the chance that women are getting pregnant to have more kids, instead of to feed their addiction to bumpahol. Ann Curry asks Dr. Lusskin when we should be concerned about a woman's rampant spawning. Lusskin says,

We're concerned about this when women are doing it to the exclusion of the other factors in their life, in other words that drive to become pregnant just supersedes everything else, almost like Species, you know that movie?

Got it — so when women transform into alien-human hybrids who need human sperm in order to perpetuate their race of killer tentacle-beasts, it's time to worry. There's a lot more fun stuff in the clip, including Dr. Lusskin grinning maniacally as she discusses post-partum depression, but to see if there was a grain of truth behind all this hysteria, we looked at the original Women's Health article that inspired the Today Show segment. Called "The Belly-Rubbing High," it's written by Martha Brockenbrough, who also penned It Could Happen to You: Diary of a Pregnancy and Beyond (obviously an addiction memoir). The article includes several head-splittingly obvious statements like, "Having babies isn't addictive in the way that alcohol and narcotics can be," and requisite namechecks of various big families (the Octomom! The Duggars!). But it also offers this advice:

If you do find yourself feeling a void as your bundle of joy becomes a toddler, "that's a good sign that it's time to look in the mirror and figure out what's going on with you," says Ann Pleshette Murphy, author of The Seven Stages of Motherhood: Loving Your Life Without Losing Your Mind. "Invest in yourself. Though it may never be as satisfying as what we get from taking care of our kids, it's important to feel proud of something you do outside of child-rearing so that you don't think of yourself as 'only a mom.'"

Really? Investing in yourself may never be as satisfying as taking care of your kids? And yet, when taking care of said kids, you're in danger of feeling like 'only a mom?' If there really are women who are addicted to being pregnant (and Ann Curry, to her credit, doubts this is very common), might it have something to do with this double-edged sword? Once you have a baby, you're expected to think of raising it as more important than your own life, but at the same time you're at the mercy of those who think of child-rearing as an inferior activity. For some, pregnancy might be a respite from this conflict, a time to anticipate the joy of a child without yet dealing with the difficulties of being a mom (although pregnant women do get plenty of judgment about what they eat, drink, wear, etc.). Brockenbrough closes her article thus:

"Me time" can include big things-like going back to work or starting your own business from home-or small, daily experiences that enrich your life, such as heading to the gym or joining your girlfriends for dinner and cocktails. It's only when you have a balanced life that you can be sure the inner call for a new addition to your family should be answered.

If some women really do have a problematic relationship with pregnancy and childbearing, maybe the solution isn't to tell them when they should have kids (what is "a balanced life" anyway?). Maybe we should quit sending them mixed messages, quit judging and second-guessing them, and just leave them the fuck alone.

"Bumpaholics": Women Who Love Pregnancy [MSNBC]
The Belly-Rubbing High [Women's Health]

It's shocking how quickly Kate has gone from being publicly vilified as TV's most shrewish wife to being respected as the resilient mom focusing on her kids as her husband makes a public spectacle of himself. Though Kate repeated many of the declarations she's made on Jon and Kate Plus 8, saying in the clip above, "My focus still is the health and well being of my children as well as myself," she seemed much more sincere than in the past. Kate also appeared more fragile than before, admitting that she feels like a failure. "This is not what any mother sets out for their children," she said, but added, "I want my children to see a mother who's committed to her children, who's determined, who has integrity and perseverance and never gives up."

As for that wedding ring: Kate explained that she's been wearing the band for the children's benefit. "I don't want to upset them. I don't want to shock them," she said, beginning to cry. When interviewer Meredith Viera asked if Kate's still harboring hopes of reuniting with Jon, she replied, "No. I think its very clear that we are two different people at this point with two different sets of goals."

Speaking of: When Viera asked about Jon's relationship with Hailey Glassman, Kate said she's upset about how his actions hurt the children, adding, "those things, to be very honest... that's his life and they don't affect me directly at this point." Her answer seeemed weirdly disconnected, as it seems anyone would be directly affected by their estranged husband's highly publicized flings with a series of women (not to mention his troubling friendship with Michael Lohan).

In the clip below, from a second segment on the morning show, Gosselin explains that the money made off Jon & Kate Plus 8 will pay for a college education for each her kids and denies once again that she's dating her bodyguard Steve Neild or that she bought a condo to be near him. As for her publicly-critical brother Kevin Kreider and his wife Jodi, Kate says, "That's probably one of the most hurtful things in all of this, when family turns on you and makes up lies... and makes tens of thousands of dollars doing it." The thing is, the same could be said of the Gosselins: after all, neither has been selfless enough to stop allowing family problems be played out in front of the cameras.

Kate: "I'm Still Wearing My Wedding Ring For The Kids" [MSNBC]