Luke Ford | No sacred cows.

Beautiful Woman Seeks Millionaire

Posted on October 7, 2007 by Luke Ford

A post on Craigslist:

I’m tired of beating around the bush. I’m a beautiful (spectacularly beautiful) 25 year old girl. I’m articulate and classy. I’m not from New York. I’m looking to get married to a guy who makes at least half a million a year. I know how that sounds, but keep in mind that a million a year is middle class in New York City, so I don’t think I’m overreaching at all.
Are there any guys who make 500K or more on this board? Any wives? Could you send me some tips? I dated a business man who makes average around 200 – 250. But that’s where I seem to hit a roadblock. 250,000 won’t get me to central park west. I know a woman in my yoga class who was married to an investment banker and lives in Tribeca, and she’s not as pretty as I am, nor is she a great genius. So what is she doing right? How do I get to her level?
Here are my questions specifically:
-Where do you single rich men hang out? Give me specifics- bars, restaurants, gyms.
-What are you looking for in a mate? Be honest guys, you won’t hurt my feelings.
-Is there an age range I should be targeting (I’m 25)?
-Why are some of the women living lavish lifestyles on the upper east side so plain? I’ve seen really ‘plain jane’ boring types who have nothing to offer married to incredibly wealthy guys. I’ve seen drop dead gorgeous girls in singles bars in the east village. What’s the story there?
-Jobs I should look out for? Everyone knows – lawyer, investment banker, doctor. How much do those guys really make? And where do they hang out? Where do the hedge fund guys hang out?
-How you decide marriage vs. just a girlfriend? I am looking for MARRIAGE ONLY.
Please hold your insults – I’m putting myself out there in an honest way. Most beautiful women are superficial; at least I’m being up front about it. I wouldn’t be searching for these kind of guys if I wasn’t able to match them – in looks, culture, sophistication, and keeping a nice home and hearth.

A guy responds:

What you suggest is a simple trade: you bring your looks to the party and I bring my money. Fine, simple. But here’s the rub, your looks will fade and my money will likely continue into perpetuity…in fact, it is very likely that my income increases but it is an absolute certainty that you won’t be getting any more beautiful!

So, in economic terms you are a depreciating asset and I am an earning asset. Not only are you a depreciating asset, your depreciation accelerates!
Let me explain, you’re 25 now and will likely stay pretty hot for the next 5 years, but less so each year. Then the fade begins in earnest. By 35 stick a fork in you!
So in Wall Street terms, we would call you a trading position, not a buy and hold…hence the rub…marriage. It doesn’t make good business sense to "buy you" (which is what you’re asking) so I’d rather lease.
In case you think I’m being cruel, I would say the following: If my money were to go away, so would you, so when your beauty fades I need an out. It’s as simple as that.
So a deal that makes sense is dating, not marriage.
Separately, I was taught early in my career about efficient markets. So, I wonder why a girl as "articulate, classy and spectacularly beautiful" as you has been unable to find your sugar daddy. I find it hard to believe that if you are as gorgeous as you say you are that the $500K hasn’t found you, if not only for a tryout.
By the way, you could always find a way to make your own money and then we wouldn’t need to have this difficult conversation.
With all that said, I must say you’re going about it the right way. Classic "pump and dump." I hope this is helpful, and if you want to enter into some sort of lease, let me know.

I tell Robert Light that I don’t see anything wrong with what she wrote. He replies:

What she writes is Exhibit A representative of a lot of women I’ve known.

My two cents: I’ll bet, contrary to the guy responding to her inquiry, that she’s indeed quite beautiful. Moreover, I’ll bet she is, at some level, wrestling with something deeper but unacknowledged: i.e., the fact that most well-to-do hedge fund, investment banker, power-lawyer, rich-dude types are typically NOT endowed with very hip, sexy personalities…these being the real qualities to which, I’ll presume, she’s attracted and which actually "turn her on." (Not to mention the fact that the vast majority of such men are, at best, quite average-looking. But a great* personality typically trumps looks for most women anyway, so this point is a bit moot). What women say they’re attracted to and what they ARE attracted to are often two completely different things. And if they reflect upon this, it causes them a bit of surprise, if no little bit of frustration/unease. Which is to say, this girl’s suffering from massive cognitive dissonance: since it’s actually not the money that causes her to feel deep/physical attraction to certain (but, unfortunately, not-so-rich…and thus soon-to-be-ditched) men, such a cycle goes on and on…as it does for many women, well into their 30s and 40s, leaving them STILL wondering why in the Hell they could still be single. But here’s the real reason why she- at her ripe age of 25- has "astonishingly" not landed the appropriate sugar daddy: if marriage is utterly reduced to the material (i.e., whether we’re speaking of flesh- "looks"- or money) then, obviously, there’s no reason for any rich guy who does happen to be "interesting" (i.e., cool/"fun") and physically attractive to ever settle down with any woman. Why should he? And why the heck should women who essentially treat themselves as prostitutes vis-a-vis rich men be at all surprised when they find that the most desirable men- especially those in whom not only money, but also looks and personality coincide- end up going through women (one after another, after another…), treating them as essentially, well, prostitutes?

I respond: You have a problem with reality. She’s no more a hooker than you are a john for wanting to marry a beautiful woman.

Robert responds: "Point taken. But my point is that so many women make a man’s money to be the one main thing. And by the same logic you provide, I say that men who marry "trophy wives" are just as shallow and morally decrepit as such women.

"Look, as long as women value men based on their bank accounts, society will continue to be more and more fucked up. (Not that I’m attributing all social pathology to this phenomenon, by no means)."

Posted in Dating | Comments Off

That Looks Like Me On The Cover Of Esquire’s October Issue

Posted on October 7, 2007 by Luke Ford

Click here.

Posted in Personal | Comments Off

Intervention

Posted on October 7, 2007 by Luke Ford

A friend of mine lost a girlfriend to drugs. Last time I saw her (about six weeks ago), she was hot. Now she’s skin and bones.

My friend is trying to help her but he IM’d me Sunday morning by mistake.

Anon: i tryed to call
Anon: bab tell me were u r i will come right now i am not mad at u i realy want to help u come on i cant do this…all day its been 3 days now i dont want to see u like that and i wont let anyone see u like this lets get u beter remeber who the most butteful girl is i am looking at your pickture as i right this and you were the best please call me i no u r getig this
Anon: i no u caled…and see told u i love u i told her and u i wood no yell or be mad it was the drug not u so please stop runing dont wate tell its to late
Anon: its not tp late yet i will try with all my hart just let me show u u need rest and no stress so come home and feel safe agen i will just hold u if thats what it takes
Anon: i will do what ever it takes to make u happy ok now it is up to u to trust me i never hert u and never wood i now this is what u want so just do it befor somethig happens that even i cant fix i love u pleas trust me i never lied to u
Anon: pick up the phone its m calling
Anon: i no u r not happy right now so let me help u u told me so please stop runing y b so sad you r killing your self and u r brakeing my hart u r so much beter then this fucken drug
Anon: do u want my help
Anon: or not
Anon: i will come save u
Anon: reed it what more can isay just let me do it
Anon: r u gyes ok today i no u had a bad time so just stop and call i will b there in 20 mins were ever u r…think of all good times right now and come get them all back

Posted in Personal | Comments Off

New Media Book by Howard Kurtz Due This Week

Posted on October 7, 2007 by Luke Ford

This should be the most talked about book this week.

Editor and Publisher report:

NEW YORK Without much fanfare, a new book by Washington Post and CNN media critic Howard Kurtz is due this week.
It’s called "Reality Show: Inside the Last Great Television News War," and is published by the Free Press. Kurtz’s well-known book, "Spin Cycle," appeared a decade ago.
Amazon.com, which is usually geared up for publication, doesn’t even have cover art, let alone a full description or excerpt. Pub date is listed as October 9. Barnes and Noble online has no listing for the book.
The Free Press web site shows a cover with Katie Couric, Brian Williams and Charles Gibson on it. It says it runs 480 pages.

From the Drudge Report:

Former CBSNEWS anchor Dan Rather pressured CBS to air the failed Bush/National Guard story in September 2004, Howard Kurtz reports in his new blockbuster book: REALITY SHOW: INSIDE THE LAST GREAT TELEVISION NEWS RACE. Rather claims in his lawsuit against CBS that he wasn’t involved in the final decision to run the Memogate story.
After finishing nearly two years of research, Kurtz unleashes his book this week.
Excerpt:
The night before the story was tentatively scheduled to air, Rather was sitting at the anchor desk, with less than half an hour before the start of the Evening News. He called Josh Howard, who had recently been named as executive producer of 60 Minutes Wednesday, and asked what they were doing to promote his story.
“We’re not,” Howard said. “We haven’t gotten the lawyers to sign off. The script isn’t finished. We haven’t even talked to the White House. I’m not going to start promoting a story when we don’t know what we have.” That was not the answer Rather wanted to hear.
“Other people are chasing this story,” he said. “We’re going to lose our exclusive. We have to get our hooks into the story.”
When Howard again refused, Rather raised the stakes.
“I’m going to give one of the documents to The New York Times to run in Wednesday’s paper,” he said. “They’ll have to credit CBS News. That way we can put our stamp on it.”
“You can’t do that either,” Howard said. “We haven’t finished vetting this.” Rather grumbled and hung up. To raise the specter of giving away a scoop to a competing news outlet was practically unheard of.
Howard, who had once been an Evening News producer, had never been subjected to this kind of pressure. He did, however, have a backup plan. They were still in rerun season, so if the Guard story failed to get the green light, he had a previously aired program ready to go.
Developing…

From the Washington Post:

This article is adapted from the book "Reality Show: Inside the Last Great Television News War" by Howard Kurtz, Free Press, New York, ©2007.
Charlie Gibson is a product of the Vietnam War era. When he was a television reporter in Lynchburg, Va., he had driven to Washington on weekends to march in antiwar demonstrations. And he had lost friends in that jungle war.
Now Gibson had friends whose sons were dying in Iraq. His thoughts kept returning to one central question: When you commit kids to war, what are they fighting for? What was the mission in Iraq? How could a family say that the war was worth little Johnny’s well-being?
The ABC anchor was obsessed with this point. If you were president, and you decided to go to war, was there a calculus in your mind, that the goal was worth so many American lives? After all, your generals would tell you that X number were likely to die. What was the acceptable trade-off? Gibson’s threshold would be one: Was the war worth one life?
As the U.S. occupation of Iraq stretched into its fourth bloody year, the media coverage was turning increasingly negative, and the three evening news anchors constantly agonized over how to deal with the conflict.
Their newscasts had become a nightly tableau of death and destruction, and whether that was an accurate picture of Iraq had become a matter of fierce political debate. Certainly the constant plague of suicide bombs, explosive devices, sniper fire and, occasionally, the massacre of large numbers of civilians played into television’s need for dramatic events and arresting visuals. Certainly, by 2006 it was easier for the anchors and correspondents to offer a skeptical vision of the war, now that a majority of the country disapproved of the conflict, than in the heady days after the toppling of Saddam Hussein seemed to strike a blow for democracy in the Middle East. By training their powerful spotlight on the chaos gripping Iraq, the anchors were arguably contributing to the political downfall of a president who had seemed to be riding high when he won his second term.
Through the routine decisions of daily journalism — how prominently to play a story, what pictures to use, what voices to include — the newscasts were sending an unmistakable message. And the message was that George W. Bush‘s war was a debacle. Administration officials regularly complained about the coverage as unduly negative, but to little avail. Other news organizations chronicled the deteriorating situation as well, but with a combined 25 million viewers, the evening newscasts had the biggest megaphone.
Painful Images
When Brian Williams thought about Iraq, he thought about his visits to Walter Reed Army Medical Center. He was tortured by these trips to comfort the veterans being treated there. It was hard to look at their wounds. He remembered one soldier who had five titanium pins sticking out of his toes. His heart ached for these brave men and women who had been to Iraq, on orders from their commander in chief.
For Williams, it all went back to Sept. 11, 2001. As a citizen, he thought on that fateful day, thank God that Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld and Colin Powell were on the team. How together we all seemed. There was something about the murderous attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon that, in the eyes of the White House press corps, gave Bush a stature that could not be violated. And that was no accident. The administration’s deft use of 9/11 against its critics had created an impenetrable shield. It was political magic.

What a pathetic childlike view from these anchors. To evaluate a war, you can’t concentrate on the killed and injured. You have to weigh up the costs with the benefits. The benefit of the Iraq war is that we have removed a brutal dictator and kept control of the country out of the hands of Islamic terrorists. As long as that persists, I’d call the war a success.

Posted in Journalism | Comments Off

Man and God As Sick Punch Lines

Posted on October 7, 2007 by Luke Ford

Charles McGrath writes Oct. 1, 2007 in the New York Times:

On the second day of the Rosh Hashana holiday last month, Mr. Auslander visited Monsey, a village in Rockland County, for the first time in years. Driving down the New York State Thruway from his new home near Woodstock, he worried that God might take this occasion to snare him in a fatal car wreck. He had even rented a sport utility vehicle, rather than risk being caught in the family wheels on a day when no observant Jew would even think of driving. “It was in the back of my mind the whole time,” he said. “That would be a great punch line — for me to die in Monsey just as the book is coming out. There is no sicker comic than God.”
Most people were on foot that day in Monsey, walking to and from the village’s many synagogues. There were mothers in long dresses and snoods pushing infants in strollers, with boys in suits and yarmulkes skipping alongside; men in black hats and prayer shawls, and some wearing fur hats, breeches and white silk stockings.
“It’s not just whether you’re Jewish or not — there’s a whole checklist,” Mr. Auslander said, trying to explain the differences among the various groups. “It’s like gang symbols. Your clothing, your hat, how you wear your payess,” or sidelocks. “This is Crips territory here,” he went on, “and just being in a car automatically makes you a Blood.” He added: “I try sometimes to see myself through their eyes — as someone who has made a huge mistake. On the other hand, what if the big joke is that God has nothing to do with any of this, and doesn’t care about it at all?”

Posted in Shalom Auslander | Comments Off

Teresa Strasser Vs Tabloid Baby

Posted on October 7, 2007 by Luke Ford

Tabloid Baby reports:

Teresa Strasser, if we made you cry, we apologize!

But come on. Did we really make you cry? Really? From a listen to the evidence, it seems more likely you made up the story to carry out a hit on behalf of your bosses!

And the hit was on us, a puny– though qualified– voice in cyberspace.

We got word yesterday that Teresa, who does double duty at the execrable Adam Carolla radio show and the syndicated TV series based on the corporate porn-pushing gossip site TMZ.com, talked about us on the radio. And thanks to fans at the Adam Carolla message board, we were able to hear what she said about us.

Teresa, Teresa, Teresa… The poor gal, who for months has been a sexual punching bag for Carolla and crew, whose radio persona is based on whining about her unlucky-at-love status, and who is now aligned with a heartless tabloid series, actually claimed that one of our reports made her cry.

Teresa didn’t mention us by name, but gave enough hints that within minutes, our Tabloid Baby items were already posted on Carolla message boards and fan sites. And though she sounded to be speaking extemporaneously during the segment, anaysis shows that its more likely she was referring to, and reading from notes (whenever she was interrupted mid-sentence by Carolla, she returned to the same point, verbatim)– notes that were inaccurate.

To be blunt, she lied. In fact, Teresa’s complaint, which forms the basis of a 23 minute and 25 second Carolla show segment, appears to be the first diversionary counterattack from TMZ in wake of the every serious questions raised in our recent reports about the site.

You can hear the Carolla radio segment here, under the “Too Hot for Radio” link.

Our transcript follows, with footnotes:

ADAM CAROLLA: Teresa was a little dejected this morning due to an Internet blogger making nasty comments about her this week, but we all know she’s the hottest thing in radio and now that she’s on TMZ, the hottest on TV for that matter.

TERESA STRASSER: Maybe I had to put in a little extra effort because I had a rough day yesterday. I was just telling Brian, there’s this, um, media blogger, for some reason he just hates me (1), and um he never writes about the contents of anything I do or my writing, he just writes about how ugly I am (2)?

(Recorded gag effect: “What is it with this Jew?”)

AC: This is a media blogger. What is a “media blogger,” exactly?

TS: This guy has a site. I don’t want to say the name of it. (3)

AC: All right.

TS: But he writes about media. He covers— that’s his beat. He writes about our show here, the Adam Carolla Show, and he writes about TMZ. (4)

AC: Does he cover it from his mom’s basement—

TS: “Heee– Yes–

AC: Or is it a real gig?

TS:Yes. He’s written a book in the past and I think he used to work on Hard Copy. But he can’t work in television any more. (5)

(Recorded gag soundbite: “I’m explosive!”)

TS (cont’d): And he, uh, I never look at those things, cause as you know I can’t handle it? But yesterday I was at TMZ and I was like, ‘Aaah, I’m kinda bored, let me just—let me just google myself’ and I got about eight pages in and there was nothing but great– people just writing the most kindhearted things, (6) and I just kept looking until I got to the thing—and this guy was so cruel, and it was just basically about how I’m hideous, and uh, and he said that I’m gonna be replaced on TMZ because, um I’m like Rachel Dratch on 30 Rock and I’m too ugly for television and they’re gonna have to replace me with Jane Krakowski. And he was like that bent nosed, pancake makeup– uhh!!

AC: …Rachel Dratch, too ugly to do comedy?

TS: That’s what he said. (7) And by the way, I mean–

AC: That’s like being too ugly to detail cars…

TS: Well I got really, you know, in my mind– had a conversation with this guy in my mind for about four hours, where I thought like, what do you want me to be a Barbie doll? I do the news and um, you know he’s– I don’t think he’s ever googled me or has any idea that I, um, you know, have had a career in journalism. (8) I’m not trying to be a Maxim model.

AC: Yeah, I—I—I– I totally concur…

TS:Oh, it said one of the reasons I was ugly was because you are wearing me out. It said "after months of Adam Carolla, she’s worse for wear." (9)

At this point, co-host Danny Bonaduce goes into a funny riff on comments on the TMZ website about his own appearance.

TS: I– I try. I try to put – I, I try to put it out of my mind because I thought this is just one guy and I’ve, I’ve been really lucky I’ve had nothing but mostly nice things written about me. But I woke up this morning and the first thing, about three seconds into consciousness, I just thought. “I’m so ugly, I’m too ugly for television.” I started crying. I had to wake up Batman. I’m like, “Batman, am I ugly?! Do I look like Rachel Dratch? I’m too ugly!”

AC: Well, okay, cup– couple of things.

TC: I can’t move on and I can’t let go.

AC: I understand…

TS: Can’t let go.

AC: People– People are, people are cruel. People are cruel. Um–

TS: Ouch! Ouch!

AC: Now the Internet has become what used to be the car window at sixty miles an hour…

TS: Yeah, like, “Hey, fat ass!”

At this point, Carolla launches into a braying, droning three minute and 32 second “rant” about the Internet, automobiles, Suge Knight, writing emails and the appearance of TV commentators and comedians, before taking a phone call from a listener who tells Teresa, “You’re much too pretty for radio” and suggests that the media blogger must “be on crack.”

AC: First thing I hate is the inaccuracy…

Carolla now launches into a braying, droning one minute and 22 second rant about reviews of The Man Show before Bonaduce gets a word in edgewise.

TS: Well, it was weird, when I first started working here at the Adam Carolla Show, this same site wrote a very lengthy piece, all of which was inaccurate, And I was shocked that he never fact checked– it wasn’t mean to me so it didn’t hurt but he wrote, his thesis was– and he, and he wrote it as fact, he said “CBS radio got together and all the suits got together’ and I think the headline was “Girl saves drowning show.” And it said they needed a liberal to save the show (10)and it was this whole cra—I’m– first of all—I, I’m not that liberal, I’m fiscally conservative, I’m, I don’t believe in affirmative action, I don’t support a lot of welfare programs– I’m not that liberal! And secondly—

DB: Not a huge fan of comedy—

TS: And secondly, there was, there was a hu—there was never a huge meeting with any suits in New York, I never met anyone in New York and to be honest I got this job basically because you Adam flipped a coin between me and some girl with better boobs.

AC: Mmmmmmm…

TS: I mean was there ever a powwow about hiring a liberal?

AC: Hahahaha…

TS: And this was completely, completely fabricated.(11)

AC: Yeah, yeah. That’s how it works.

At this point, Bonaduce speaks about Carolla’s cult of admiring fans.

Carolla launches into a braying, droning one minute and 26 second about laughing at his own farts and other people’s farts before Bonaduce gets another word in.

The segment ends with Carolla and Bonaduce assuring Teresa Strasser that she isn’t ugly. Carolla goes into a braying, droning two minute and 13 second rant about the “cut off point” of ugliness.

FOOTNOTES:

(1) We don’t hate Teresa. We, in fact, have watched out for her and called attention to the disrespect shown her on the Carolla show. And Tabloid Baby is not a "media blogger." We’re a news team comprised of experienced, respected news and tabloid pros who share our knowledge and wisdom for free.

(2) That is demonstrably untrue. We have written about Teresa’s credentials and work from the beginning.

(3) Next time, say the name. Tabloid. Baby. Dot. Com. At least John & Ken were honest enough to do that.

(4) True.

(5) False. The journalists and producers who are part of the Tabloid Baby team, from its editor to its contributing reporters in far-reaching parts of the globe, are all influential and employed. As a currently-employed TV talent, Teresa should know better than to spread that kind of factoid.

(6) The first unkind mention of “Teresa Strasser” actually comes on the sixth page of Google search, not from Tabloid Baby, but in an item entitled “Someone is doing Teresa Strasser doggie style.”

(7) We never said that Rachel Dratch is to ugly to be on television. We merely reported that she was replaced on NBC’s 30 Rock for that reason.

(8) Our first story on Teresa did in fact infer that we had “googled” her: “A check of the net shows Strasser to be a part of the Carolla-Jimmy Kimmel ‘family’ already– an actress and TV host who worked as a writer on Win Ben Stein’s Money, the game show that featured Kimmel in a supporting role. She’s got a website that shows her to feel pretty good about herself, but that’s bound to change as Carolla will systematically grind her into powder on the air, trampling on any jokes she might throw out, and trumping her witty asides with his long-winded, monotonous stream-of-consciousness ‘comedy’ monologues.” In fact, most all of our mentions of Teresa cite her past, and as a result, bemoan her future.

(9) Actual line: "A dour Teresa Strasser, looking the worse for wear after months of battering by the execrable Adam Carolla on morning radio, literally got about three seconds of airtime near the end.”

(10) Inaccurate. False and strangely wrong. Our item, “Radio After Stern: Drowning Carolla grabs a woman” made no mention of CBS, CBS suits in New York or Teresa’s political leanings. It mentions Carolla’s (hanging up on) Ann Coulter stunt as a potential way to boost his own liberal credentials. But Teresa’s politics have not been mentioned on the site, ever.

(11) There was never a mention of powwows, executives, or “hiring a liberal” in the post. It appears some other suits led you into a trap, Teresa. Whose copy were you reading there?

Luke says:

* I’m a longtime Theresa Strasser fan. I think she’s hot and I think her writing rocks.

* I can’t get enthusiastic about coming to Theresa’s defense here because the shows that she gets ripped on by Tabloid Baby (Adam Carolla and TMZ) themselves specialize in cheap shots and personal attacks. Also, Theresa’s writing is so personal, snappy and in your face, it leaves her wide open to similar attacks.

* Teresa says she cried about Tabloid Baby calling her ugly and saying she has a crooked nose and other such low blows. It’s ridiculous to argue that she was carrying water for anybody when she was just crying from her heart. There was no hit from her on Tabloid Baby. There was no personal attack on its primary author Burt Kearns.

* It’s not fair or accurate to say that Theresa’s radio personality is based on whining about her "unlucky at love status." For the past four months, Theresa has been kvelling about her new relationship. AdamCarolla.com features video of a fake wedding for Theresa. In it Theresa says, "It would be an unusal day if I didn’t cry."

* It’s not fair or accurate to describe Theresa’s role on Adam’s show as "a sexual punching bag for Carolla and crew." She reads the news and she mixes it up.

* Contrary to point six by TB, this is no unkind mention of Strasser — “Someone is doing Teresa Strasser doggie style.”

* Theresa is clearly reading nobody’s copy. That’s preposterous. There are no scripted speeches on the Adam Carolla show.

On Oct. 5, Tabloid Baby wrote:

Apparently, Teresa reacted in some way to our musings on the debut of the television version of the corporate porn-pushing gossip site TMZ.com, on which she plays one of the supporting plug-uglies to "main on-air personality" Harvey Levin— and not our advice and reactions to the execrable carolla radio show in which she plays the femme punching bag, referred to by the nasal host as a "Jewess," and forced to giggle at crude comments about her "V" and sex life.
Teresa, whom we salute as an actual writer, has unfortunately become wedged in the Carolla-Kimmel sexist lunkhead factory (as a print columnist, she also falls into the tired Fifties-stereotype as the hapless serial dater) as the prim counterpoint to Kimmel’s gal Sarah Silverman (We watched nutty Sarah’s ooh-how-shocking show last night and have to ask again: Is her head too small for her body or what?) and has seen her reputation erode further from her halcyon makeover-show hosting days with bad lighting and pancake makeup on the TMZ TV show.

* It’s a low blow to keep taking these shots at the looks of women. For my money, Teresa and Sarah Silverman are smoking hot.

Here’s another attack on Teresa’s looks on Tabloid Baby:

Harvey, with this Roy Cohn-meets-Barry Diller countenance, popped up throughout the first episode, but his putative co-hosts, all bent noses and too much pancake makeup, were hard to find. A dour Teresa Strasser, looking the worse for wear after months of battering by the execrable Adam Carolla on morning radio, literally got about three seconds of airtime near the end.

Here’s another Tabloid Baby personal attack:

Harvey Levin has managed to insert himself into the on-air mix as "Main on-air personality." He’s done a clever job by picking younger co-stars who are as plug-ugly as himself– and with "newsy" backgrounds that distance the TV show from the sleazy corporate porn-pushing gossip site it will elevate.
But Ben Mankiewicz, Teresa Strasser and Katie Daryl, seen above, (along with "TMZ.com staffer" Michael Hundgen, whose work can be seen here) could also be trouble– and not only because they’re more suited to radio or cable than syndicated television. Harvey and the TMZ TV minds seem to be equating plain and non-flashy appearances with real tabloid authority…
… Teresa’s an Adam Carolla strawlady with smartypants showbiz pretension…
…Teresa is one of the girls from the Jimmy Kimmel camp, inserted into the execrable Carolla radio show as the sexless "Jewish" (their word) newsreader who’s rebelled by generating sparks with cohost and show stealer Danny Bonaduce. She soaks in the lunkhead lowbrow humour that TMZ and Carolla’s show share, but fancies herself a wit.

* Teresa has no connection to Jimmy Kimmel.

* I don’t think Tabloid Baby has it in for Theresa Strasser as much as for Adam Carolla:

A check of the net shows Strasser to be a part of the Carolla-Jimmy Kimmel "family" already– an actress and TV host who worked as a writer on Win Ben Stein’s Money , the game show that featured Kimmel in a supporting role. She’s got a website that shows her to feel pretty good about herself, but that’s bound to change as Carolla will systematically grind her into powder on the air, trampling on any jokes she might throw out, and trumping her witty asides with his long-winded, monotonous stream-of-consciousness “comedy” monologues.
Strasser ‘s no sex kitten. Physically, she’s cut from the Sara Silverman mold and seems to consider herself a smartypants. It’ll be interesting to see what kind of sexy shots the Carolla team digs up for their site.

Tabloid Baby responds Oct. 10:

We’ve no real problems with Teresa. We think she was typecast for TMZ TV because she fits the ethnic/brunette/not too pretty mold so the egomad managing editor/executive producer Harvey Levin– who made himself the host– would not look old, waxy, Dillerish in comparison… We don’t enjoy Carolla’s brand of fratboy anti-immigrant, woman-hating radio humour — the type of humour that emanates from nerdy sports fan (not sports player) losers who hate beautiful women and blame the downtrodden for their own lost chances. Howard Stern played it masterfully when he was alive. Kimmel and Carolla are lunkhead buffoons and Teri S plays into their game.

But bottom line, she did not have to lie about Tabloid Baby. It was obvious she was firing a volley on behalf of TMZ after my report the previous day.

Posted in Tabloid Baby, Teresa Strasser | Comments Off

The Calendar Girls – New and Improved

Posted on October 6, 2007 by Luke Ford

On page 45 of the latest Jewish Journal, I read that "LA’s Best Online Jewish Calendar Just Got Better!"

Wow, I thought, Dikla Kadosh must’ve broken up with her boyfriend.

But when I scanned her blog, I found no evidence for my supposition.

Then how exactly are the Calendar Girls better?

Brad A. Greenberg, the Jewish Journal’s great white hope, has flamed out. Succumbing to the culture of his new publication, he’s produced the quintessential suck-up piece to Sony Pictures CEO Michael Lynton.

Lynton could do coke and hookers every Friday night and that would never find its way into the Journal until he was no longer rich and powerful. But as long as you have those two attributes, you’ll only get blowjobs from the Jewish Journal.

There’s not a skeptical syllable in Brad’s latest.

He writes: "After rising to president of Disney publishing, Lynton took over the company’s failing Hollywood Pictures division in 1994; two years later it was shuttered and Lynton ankled Los Angeles for New York, where he would run Penguin books."

Nobody uses "ankled" except Variety.

The Journal’s cover story is titled "A Muslim Mother’s Journey to Dachau."

I suppose that in future weeks, the Journal will feature Pastor Fred "God Hates Fags" Phelps trip to the West Hollywood Gay Pride parade and Yggdrasil’s visit to Friday Night Live.

Are cutbacks to news organizations such as the Journal a threat to democracy?

Kate Coe writes about growing up in Montana. Her senior class play was Fiddler on the Roof.

Rabbi David Wolpe writes about Phiip Roth’s new book Exit Ghost:

This book is blighted. Roth’s great subject reminds me of what Emerson said in his journal about Bronson Alcott: "He never quotes; he never refers; his only illustration is his own biography. His topic yesterday is Alcott on the 17th October; today, Alcott on 18th October."
Roth’s subject is his body, more accurately, his genitalia. There was his youthful lust, his middle age lust and now we are unwilling voyeurs to his aged, unavailing lust. The reader can trace the distasteful peregrinations of Roth’s libido through a series of books designed to illuminate the modern condition. His subject is Zuckerman’s (Zuckerman is one of Roth’s fictional alter-egos) sexual status on 17th October. Tomorrow it will be Zuckerman’s sexual status on 18th October. Throw in some magnificent verbiage, a few political diatribes, include a young nubile woman always interested in him and usually married, and presto — the novel is cooked.
One thing we do not get in a Roth novel is moral reflection. Not on his own actions, at any rate. Adultery is a great subject in literature; without it we would eviscerate the western canon, from Tolstoy to Flaubert. But usually it entails some moral reflection. Adultery without angst is not literature, just license. In Roth, sexual conquest is an entitlement pure and simple. In this novel, incest and adultery are employed (the incest remains cloudy) for spice, and the great themes of art are reduced to prostates and prostrations. We suffer through considerable anatomically excruciating detail about the results of his prostate cancer; yet again, the degradation entails no elevation.

David Kaufman writes about Shalom Auslander’s memoir:

The conceit of the book, and the source of some of its most outrageous humor, is that the Lord is indeed a wrathful God, not only ready to visit swift death, but also lingering torment on those who affront Him, either directly or indirectly. The teachings of Auslander’s rabbis and the documentary evidence of the ages clearly show Auslander that God "flew off the eternal handle with frightening regularity." Hence Auslander’s ongoing paranoid shtick — both very funny and not a little bit scary — that he will be punished in any number of ways for any number of rebellious acts. He eats treif. He violates the Sabbath. He masturbates incessantly. He smokes vast amounts of marijuana. And he writes this book, which is nothing less than a portrait of the artist with a cheeseburger and fries.
To hear him tell it, Auslander was brutalized by his alcoholic father and fiercely constrained by his deeply depressed mother. But, as he might be the first to admit, he was never truly rejected. Members of his family — however awfully toxic that family might be — keep trying to maintain some sort of relationship with him. Auslander will have none of it. He rejects the superstitions and hair-splitting of their rabbis. He rejects their oppressive restrictions on appetite. He rejects every aspect of their way of life.
The more psychologically minded reader might wonder if Auslander’s struggle with a vengeful God is not a cosmic projection of his own conflict with his violent, laconic father. But because the entire population of Monsey seems to share Auslander’s vision of the Almighty — rather than, say, viewing God as a kindly father or a spurned lover (analogies that are prevalent in both the Tanach and the Talmud) — it could just be the other way around. Auslander’s father is made in the image of God, and so he is less of an issue than God Himself. After all, the father drops out of the narrative pretty early on. One can only assume that Auslander isn’t too concerned with him — or with the rest of his family, for that matter, who are mentioned less and less as the story develops. He’s got bigger fish — the Biggest Fish, actually — to fry.

Amy Klein writes:

Do you remember when anyone with their own personal Web page was either a narcissist, a lunatic or a geek you would never give your e-mail to? OK, this was back in 1997 or so, when everyone was just starting to get e-mail, but still. Having your own Web page was a big scarlet L. Lo-ser.
Today, if you’re in the writing industry — or any industry where you want to be known, which seems to be every industry — you’re supposed to promote yourself by at least having a Web page, if not a blog. (In what I can’t decide was either a compliment or an insult, a former editor told me, "Amy, you were born to blog.") But for some reason, I don’t feel like it.
I never built a page on MySpace. In fact, for a while I thought that anyone older than 30 who had a page there was a pedophile, or at least had Peter Pan syndrome. But there was the promotional aspect, and so I was considering relenting, except by then, all the kids — and adults — were moving over to Facebook. Originally designed for college networks, Facebook recently opened itself up to everyone. And everyone, it seems, is on it.

Orit Arfa says leave Israel alone. This is a classic video!

Posted in Calendar Girls, Jewish Journal | Comments Off

Mirthala’s New Car

Posted on October 6, 2007 by Luke Ford

ERSNews.com reports:

ERS News has been on the story of LA Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and Mirthala Salinas since the start. It all started on July 3rd 2007 and when it will end is anybody’s guess. But even before July 3rd, 2007, LA blogger-king Luke Ford (lukeford.net) broke the story that LA’s "rockstar" Mayor was playing fast and loose with his marriage. The Mayor was telling what most would call a lie about why he wasn’t wearing his wedding ring.
Well we all know the story by now, but the only person we haven’t heard from in the entire mess is the woman at the center of the story, Mirthala Salinas. She released one brief PR crafted statement when the scandal first broke and since then it’s been a deafening silence. Where is she? What’s she been up too? Just this week, Telemundo, her former employer, expected her to return to work after her two-month suspension for violating conflict of interest and ethical standards in dating the Mayor while also covering him as a journalist. The practice was nothing new for Salinas and her station management. Mirthala had been having romantic relationships with politicians she covered for years. ERS first exposed her relationship with Fabian Nunez, the second most powerful politician in the California. As scandals and stories go, this one ended with a resounding "ho-hum." Salinas never showed up at her new assignment in Riverside and Telemundo and Salina’s "mutually agreed" to part ways.
Salinas has done a great job staying out of the limelight, avoiding the media glare and hiding out from the prying eyes of reporters. Since her secret affair with mayor was exposed, only a single chance run-in with a cell phone cam toting spy for the celebrity website TMZ.com at a mall shopping with her boyfriend, his honor Mayor Villaraigosa. This has been the only glimpse of what was and still is a mostly secret relationship with LA’s Mayor.
The Enterprise Report can report exclusively, that we have known for sometime one of the ways Salinas has been fooling the LA media horde. Although she hasn’t fooled ERS, we haven’t felt it newsworthy until now to publish this story.
In early August ERSNews was following up on the story about Mirthala Salinas spending a lot of time with Mayor Antonio Villaragisoa at the city’s officials Mayor’ Residence, Getty House.

Posted in Mirthala Salinas | Comments Off

Torah Weirdo

Posted on October 3, 2007 by Luke Ford

The Luke Ford Fan Blogger has good news:

I’ve found a publisher for my unauthorised biography of Horrid Boy™ tentatively titled Torah Weirdo: Sex, Religion and Luke Ford. The book will be published next spring by Verso Press — well respected in the industry for distributing the works of leading intellectuals, such as Norman Finkelstein, Alexander Cockburn, Ho Chi Minh, Mao Zedong, Fidel Castro, and Rebecca Schoenkopf. A pretty impressive line-up, huh? I’m so proud!
Currently I’m finishing off the final chapters on Luke Ford‘s icky love life. I’ve spoken to some thirty victims of the Hairless Porker™. If you, your grandmother, or your pet wallaby has had sex with Mr Ford please contact me for an interview. There is still time for your story to be included in my book. Your anonymity will be respected if you so request; although, in the interest of authenticity, I would like to use your pet’s real name if possible. Thank you.

Posted in Personal | Comments Off

Hal Sparks Sings ‘Back In Black’

Posted on October 3, 2007 by Luke Ford

At Sardo’s Bar in Burbank Tuesday night: Actor Hal Sparks Sings ACDC’s ‘Back In Black’.

I’ll be back with more original hard-hitting investigative reporting after the Jewish holidays.

After I dance with the Torah Thursday night, I plan to be reborn as Eric Longabardi.

Posted in Hollywood | Comments Off