Now That’s More Like It – Special Reality Edition

Tod Kelly

Tod is a writer from the Pacific Northwest. He is also serves as Executive Producer and host of both the 7 Deadly Sins Show at Portland's historic Mission Theatre and 7DS: Pants On Fire! at the White Eagle Hotel & Saloon. He is  a regular inactive for Marie Claire International and the Daily Beast, and is currently writing a book on the sudden rise of exorcisms in the United States. Follow him on Twitter.

Related Post Roulette

27 Responses

  1. Kazzy says:

    Driving in to work today, I caught a “Mike & Mike” segment where they were talking about the story but, for some odd reason, during the entire 20 minutes I was driving, they never ACTUALLY said what happened. They just kept referring to it as “this”, as if it was something they couldn’t even say. They asked Billick if “this” would impact his draft stock. They talked about how “this” would trump Oprah’s interview with Lance. They talked about how it was so unbelievable that “this” happened. And there tone and handling was sort of perplexing, giving no indication of what happened (Did he kill someone? Did he come out? ANYTHING was in play!). When I got to work the first thing I did was log on and basically find out it was some weird episode of “Catfish”.Report

  2. Kazzy says:

    And, of course, the solution to this was to simply release Brent Musberger out into the world with her scent. Would have gotten to the bottom of it in a snap.Report

  3. Burt Likko says:

    Once at an old job we had a guy who was wound up kind of tight, a kid right out of college who hadn’t yet learned to relax. He’d come out from the east coast for a year-long gig. I don’t know if he was a virgin when he came out, but he sure acted like he was super-anxious to do something to make sure he wasn’t by the time he went back home! But he also had lots of pressure from his family back east to meet a nice Jewish girl he could take home and marry while he was out in Los Angeles.

    So us cutups in the office told him all about “the new girl” at the office, named her “Yael Kirschner,” gave her a mail slot, an e-mail address from which she occasionally sent mail and was frequently copied on interoffice memos (some of which we signed for the bosses), assigned her a spare desk, occasionally shuffled the paperwork on it for her, and she even had a lipstick-stained coffee cup on her desk which would appear or disappear as she drank it. Every time our buddy found an excuse to wander over to that part of the office, he’d “just missed her, she had to go out and pick up those transparancies from Kinko’s” or something like that. We kept on describing how remarkably attractive she was with terms like “It’s hard to imagine how she could be so skinny when she’s so well-endowed!” and “Someone needs to tell her that her skirts are a little bit too short to be professional, but until that happens I don’t mind looking.”

    We kept the guy going for about a week until this dude’s hormones were working in hyperdrive. Eventually, one of the higher-ups heard about it and made us ‘fess up that it was all just a practical joke, there was really no Yael Kirschner. He took it in very good humor and in fact we made it a point afterwards to take him out on the town and get him introduced to some real, live single women. He wound up doing just fine in that department before going back east and heading off to law school. He and I are still friends to this day.

    Anyway, I’m recalling the story because maybe Te’o’s “girlfriend” started out something like the beautiful but sadly-fictional Yael, and it just grew from there.Report

    • greginak in reply to Burt Likko says:

      Just remember Burt, revenge is a dish best served cold.

      (The wide open shirt, scenery chewing star trek action is optional.)Report

    • Mike Schilling in reply to Burt Likko says:

      When you all met in Vegas, did anyone actually see this alleged “Mrs. Likko”?Report

    • NewDealer in reply to Burt Likko says:

      “I don’t know if he was a virgin when he came out”

      There are multiple ways to read this sentence.

      Speaking of hoaxes,

      Do you have any strong opinions about whether the California Supreme Court should allow Stephen Glass to practice law in California or not? As far as I can tell, they have not released a decision in the matter yet.

      This probably should have been my question for Ask Burt Likko anything.Report

      • Burt Likko in reply to NewDealer says:

        The fellow was hungry for some action, yaknowhatimsayin’? Like, unusually and intensely hungry for it.Report

      • Burt Likko in reply to NewDealer says:

        I know nothing about the Stephen Glass situation. I suppose I could get schooled up on it but I don’t even know what you’re talking about as I write.Report

        • NewDealer in reply to Burt Likko says:

          Stephen Glass was a hot-shot journalist in the mid to late 90s at the New Republic and a freelancing at other magazines. He wrote cool and amazing stories that everyone loved. Sadly most of them were partially or wholly untrue. Something like 40 articles were fabricated.

          After the fabrications were revealed he somehow made it into and graduated from Georgetown Law. He was going to take the New York Bar but told that his moral application would be denied. He switched to California and to0k and passed the California Bar.

          He passed the California Bar. The Moral Character Committee denied his moral character application and he appealed. He won on appeal in a 2-1 decision. The Moral Character committee felt so strongly about him that they appealed to the California Supreme Court. I believe the California Supreme Court heard the case last spring or summer but has not issued a decision yet.

          Mr. Glass is currently making 150,000 or so a year as a paralegal in a Beverly Hills law firm. I find this somewhat galling considering the legal employment crisis and how some of my friends are suffering.

          Hollywood made a very good movie but the scandal called Shattered Glass. In true Hollywood style, they turned an Israeli-Jewish woman (Hanna Rossin) into Chloe Sevigny.Report

          • Burt Likko in reply to NewDealer says:

            Now I remember that name. I find what you report about Mr. Glass’ level of compensation as a not-quite-admitted-yet new attorney somewhat galling as well, but I shall try to set that little bit of resentment aside.

            California Rule of Professional Conduct 5-200 provides, among other things, that “In presenting a matter to a tribunal, a member: (A) Shall employ, for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to the member such means only as are consistent with truth; (B) Shall not seek to mislead the judge, judicial officer, or jury by an artifice or false statement of fact or law; … .”

            California Bar Rule 4.40(B) defines the “good moral character” which a California bar applicant has the burden of demonstrating as including, but not being limited to, “qualities of honesty, fairness, candor, trustworthiness, observance of fiduciary responsibility, respect for and obedience to the law, and respect for the rights of others and the judicial process.”

            Mr. Glass demonstrated a very significant moral failure with the fake news stories. One incident of such conduct would be one thing, but his is a history of repeated and willful disregard of truth, executed from a position of unusual visibility and trust. This appears to be deeply inconsistent with possessing the qualities of honesty, candor, and trustworthiness which an candidate must demonstrate, and it suggests that were Mr. Glass to present cases to tribunals as a member of the California bar, that he has demonstrated a prediliction to represent as true things which he knows to be untrue and thus raises a greater than standard likelihood for future violations of Rule 5-200(A-B). At minimum, a searching and thorough examination of Mr. Glass’ past activities should be made by the Committee of Bar Examiners.

            If I were on the Committee, the fabrication would cause me particular concern for two reasons. The first would be whether Mr. Glass would fabricate evidence (which is obviously intolerabe under all circumstances), and the second is how he would handle a client who indicates a willingness or even a desire to commit perjury. I would need to be convinced by what Mr. Glass said in his application that his response to such an offer from a client would be the ethically and morally correct one — which is to counsel the client not to lie, and to refuse to examine the client as a witness if the client indicates that she intends to perjure herself. And I’d need to be pretty gosh-darned convinced that if I let this guy loose in a California court, he won’t just be making up evidence when a case gets tough and indeed, he’d go out of his way for the rest of his career to make sure that there is good reason to believe that the evidence he offers is the rock-solid truth.

            Without knowing anything else, I doubt that I would approve Mr. Glass’ application. I would have to see what he said for himself before making a final decision, of course; he could express remorse for his prior actions, describe what he has done to mitigate the harm his actions caused, and offer some demonstration of concrete actions he has taken to commit to truthful behavior in the future. I don’t know what those things might look like, and I would hold an open mind to see what Mr. Glass offered in those respects because I don’t know what those things might look like. So it’s possible he could change my mind. But my presumption would be to vote “no.”Report

  4. Kazzy says:

    FWIW, I didn’t hear or read one word about his “girlfriend” until this story broke. So I feel no sense of “betrayal”. Confusion, yes. But I never factored the story into my assessment of him.Report

    • Brandon Berg in reply to Kazzy says:

      I had never heard of him until the story broke. It was kind of like Memento, starting from the end and trying to piece together the buildup.Report

  5. superdestroyer says:

    In Hawaii, the Samoans are know as the biggest jokers and pranksters. Te’o’s father has already been described as a habitual liar. Is there any reason to believe that the son is not the same.

    What the media should be asking is how many other tear jerker stories that athletes tell are also false.Report