Keith Kelly reports that VF got slammed with layoffs yesterday—layoffs that were made worse by what may have been the company's protection of the magazine during its last round of cutbacks.

Vanity Fair's layoffs were said to be in the double-digit range, and hit as high as senior editors and as low as fact checkers, and were deep, in part, because Carter largely ignored the edict to chop 5 percent late last year.

Nobody's escaping this recession totally unscathed. The New Yorker did suffer business-side cutbacks, we hear, but its editorial staff was largely protected. Vogue had a handful of layoffs last week. And, of course, the rest of the company's magazines have almost all taken hits as well (the most recent being a half dozen layoffs at GQ yesterday, according to WWD).

But Vanity Fair got hit hard. It seemingly wasn't spared a bit. Which makes one think that Graydon Carter's level of influence (unlike David Remnick's) is no match for economic reality. And the nastiest part: the Post says that Graydon didn't even show up in the office yesterday when all the layoffs were happening.

UPDATE: And now, a source tells us: The word inside the building is that Graydon was absent from work yesterday because he was on a private jet to Bermuda. Repeat: Sources say Graydon Carter missed layoff day at his magazine because he was on a private jet to Bermuda. We've asked Conde Nast about this and we'll update with their reply. [Know more? Email us].

Bad form, Graydon. You keep this up and you may find yourself a full-time restaurateur.
[Pic: Getty]

Yesterday it seemed logical to assume that the Wasserstein family trust that owns New York would want to sell it off after dad's death. After all, money-losing media vanity ownership is usually the exclusive preserve of the mature rich, not their progeny.

But! Today it was revealed that Wasserstein's death means a $188 million payout from Lazard. "Two of Mr. Wasserstein's eldest children, Pamela and Ben, are expected to play a pivotal role overseeing the trust," the WSJ reports. Coincidentally, those are the same two Wasserstein children with backgrounds in journalism—Ben, the NYO noted yesterday, even worked as a New York editor.

Ad Age says the family would probably want "a minimum of $75 million to $100 million" for the magazine—but that they're just as likely to keep it, at least for the foreseeable future. And writing at Newser, former New York editor Caroline Miller rhapsodizes about the greatness of rich guys willing to pour money into good, money-losing magazines, and beseeches Ben Wasserstein to step up and take over his dad's role.

Considering the debacle that young Jared Kushners' ownership of the Observer has been, it's odd that media types would fall over themselves once again to support a young, rich, and (all due respect to Ben) ignorant owner to take over one of the city's most prestigious media properties with nothing but ambition on his side. But as Miller points out, even that is usually preferable to owners who are very concerned with making a profit. The main quality a media mogul needs today: the willingness to lose money.

New York is controlled by a Wasserstein family trust, and nobody knows what the trust will decide to do now that Wasserstein's gone. Which is not to say it's too early to speculate. The Observer points out that at least two of Wasserstein's kids are former or current journalists, and wonders whether they might have an interest in taking over for dad.

But New York is not a moneymaking enterprise. It was one thing for the hyper-ambitious Wasserstein to snatch control of the mag for himself, beating out a consortium of similar bidders, Including Mort Zuckerman, Jeffrey Epstein, Michael Wolff, and Harvey Weinstein. It's quite another thing for his family to decide to continue pouring money into the publication. Keith Kelly today floats a few possible buyers for New York. Let's handicap them!

Mort Zuckerman, mogul and NY Daily News Owner: 3-1. Zuckerman has a big enough ego that he surely must covet New York, which is quite a step of respectability above the Daily News. He owned US News & World Report—now a shell of its former self—and New York could satisfy his glossy magazine jones again. Plus, he's not seriously broke.
Harvey Weinstein, Weinstein Co.: 6-1. Weinstein might want to own New York more than anyone. But his financial struggles at his main business make branching out into a money-losing magazine not the smartest move.
Jason Binn, Niche Media CEO: 8-1. Could be deadly to New York's inherent classiness (of a sort). Let's hope not.
Nick Denton, Gawker overlord: 50-1. You never know with this guy!

Perhaps a more realistic guess: Some sort of coalition of financiers and insiders from Wasserstein's personal empire, who'd have both the money and the knowledge to take over with little disruption. Personally, we're pulling for Wasserstein's kids to keep it in the family, though. This city (and this blog) needs all the sprightly young media moguls it can get.

WWD says so today:

Some describe the atmosphere inside of the magazine's offices as business as usual, while others are more resigned and have begun packing up their things. Bloomberg LP remains the front-runner, although the company is expected to only take on the BusinessWeek name and Web site, and none of its staff or bureaus.

Jesus, that's pretty harsh. WWD goes on to say that Bloomberg would essentially toss BW's magazine staff out and replace it with current Bloomberg employees, and the only real sticking point left is who'll pay the severance for all the BW layoffs.

But another informed source we spoke to called WWD's version "nuts." The bidders on Businessweek have only had a chance to do very preliminary assessments of the company's staff, and final decisions on layoffs would come only after a winner had been declared and allowed to do more exploration of the company's direction. But the winning bidder would have a commitment to keeping BW in operation as a print magazine (and a decent one), our source said—otherwise, why bid on the company at all? That would mean, at the very least, not coming in and gutting the company's editorial side immediately.

So, Businessweek employees: You should certainly be living in fear. But maybe not total fear. A Bloomberg purchase of BW would probably not result in immediate mass layoffs of most BW staffers, to be replaced by Bloomberg's own current employees. Although some of that could certainly happen! On the other hand, current BW staffers could then have a chance to jump over to Bloomberg—one of the few major media companies not currently mired in mass budget cuts.

Logic seems to dictate that there will be layoffs once Businessweek is sold. After all, the place isn't doing too well with its current staffing levels. The question is how many. A buyer like Bloomberg that could afford to spare a few resources would presumably be a bit better for the BW staff than a buyer intent on slashing right away—which could mean a drastic reduction in frequency for the magazine and a skeleton staff. We'll see!

But if you work at Businessweek and you get an outside job offer soon, you might wanna take it.

• That Dude Mostly Blackmailed Letterman Just to Make Him Feel Pain, Allegedly: The New York Post's daily Letterman angle is that Joe Halderman, the guy who tried to extort Dave for $2 mil, didn't even care about the money that much—he wanted to see suffering! "He wants to hurt Letterman as much as he can — and he wanted to hurt the girl, too," said a snitch. Probably because Dave was still boning Stephanie Birkitt, Halderman's girlfriend.
• Grandma Speaks: Stephanie Birkitt's 90 year-old grandmother told the Post, "She said she never had sex with him." Christ. Leave that old lady alone, sex-talking reporters.
• Sexy Letters Exist Maybe: Hello, the Daily News still has some fight in it! New York's slightly less skeevy tabloid gets back in the Letterman Scandal Game with today's story: Stephanie Birkitt wrote (but never mailed) "'trashy' love letters [to Letterman] that will embarrass them both when they become public, sources said Tuesday." One might argue that we cum-hungry tabloid news outlets should be more embarrassed about reading and publicizing the contents of a lady's unsent private love letters. It's a debatable matter!
• Who's Leaking All This?: Yesterday we mused over who might be the source for all this inside info about the case. Letterman's camp? Halderman's lawyer? Birkitt's friends? Judging by what's come out today, we can safely assume: It's the fucking cops.

Though Cruise has owned an apartment just south of Union Square for a long while now, there's a honking 8,000 square foot home that's just been sold on West 12th street. Maybe to Kom (more alien sounding then TomKat, I think, and thus better), says a doorman in the neighborhood.

Now of course none of this is confirmed, and the seller isn't talking. The property was bought in April for $15 million by a private LLC (we hope it was called The Firm), under strict confidentially agreements. The couple's reps have all denied that the home is theirs, and neighbors aren't talking either. Though, a kindly doorman was awfully helpful:

Can't tell you who lives there. I would lose my job. But you know, we doormen know everything that goes on around here. I can tell you the owner won't be there much because he'll be filming in LA a lot, and I can tell you he bought the house for his wife, who was in a Broadway show. But I can't tell you who it is. I could lose my job.

So, pretty much yes it's them! Hope you're job's OK, dude. And, again, he makes the good point that these two won't really live there. Most famous actors don't really live anywhere! They just own empty, drafty status symbols and spend their days floating jellyfish-like through a sad series of hotel suites. Basically, Lost in Translation was real.

We know that the paper's been looking to crack down on its wanton employee Twitterers ever since they went and Twittered away all the secrets of a newsroom meeting (in the old days it would have taken at least five minutes longer to have all the details sent to Romenesko). So Preston's job could include shutting down the free musings of the paper's more voluble reporters. Preston herself has a private Twitter page. ISN'T THAT FANCY? A chilling vision of David Carr's future?

But! Two points: One, they haven't actually said what the fuck a "Social Media Editor" does, so this is speculation. And two, the first announcement of Preston's new gig came on Jonathan Landman's Twitter.

Landman, you're fired.

UPDATE: Here's the internal memo on Preston's new gig, via Nieman Lab, which is just vague enough to confirm everyone's worst fears, whatever they may be:

To the Newsroom:

One of the bracing things about this topsy-turvy media landscape is that you can wake up one morning and find yourself actually doing something you never thought you'd even think about. Take Jennifer Preston. In 25 years in the news biz, she's been plenty of things: Reporter (cop shop, City Hall, Albany, etc.), editor (political editor, section editor, administrative editor, etc.) and even circulation marketing manager (at New York Newsday). But still, did she ever think she'd wake up one morning as "social media editor"?

No, she didn't but yes, she did. That morning was this one.

Jennifer is our first social media editor. What's that? It's someone who concentrates full-time on expanding the use of social media networks and publishing platforms to improve New York Times journalism and deliver it to readers.

Think of Twitter. Did you know that The New York Times is No. 2 on the Twitterholic.com Top 100 Twitterholics based on Followers? (Behind Ashton Kutcher but ahead of Ellen DeGeneres.) Don't care? OK, but the point is that an awful lot of people are finding our work not by coming to our homepage or looking at our newspaper but through alerts and recommendations from their friends and colleagues. So we ought to learn how to reach those people effectively and serve them well. At the same time, more of us are using social networks to find sources, contacts and information. Like this guy.

Jennifer will work closely with editors, reporters, bloggers and others to use social tools to find sources, track trends, and break news as well as to gather it. She will help us get comfortable with the techniques, share best practices and guide us on how to more effectively engage a larger share of the audience on sites like Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, Flickr, Digg, and beyond.

A big part of her job will be keeping everyone up to date with the rapid developments taking place on the social media front. She will work closely with social media whizzes in the newsroom and other departments, including Soraya Darabi in marketing, Jake Harris in software and Heather Moore in comment moderation, on how news feeds work and how best to be part of the online conversation. She will also work closely with Dawn Williamson, Derek Gottfrid and others involved in building our own social network, Times People, as we continue to use crowd-sourcing techniques to increase the reach and quality of our work. She will work with Craig Whitney and others to ask and answer the many tricky questions that arise in this context: What is the proper balance between personal and professional? What best practices should we adopt or adapt? How can we do the new stuff in a way that honors the old stuff? Etc.

In a significant way Jennifer will apply the collaborative techniques of social-networking to her own job, because of course we all need to figure this out together.

Page Six has anonymous sources saying Spitzer wants to try to make his comeback as New York attorney general if Andrew Cuomo runs for governor in the next election.

The sources say Spitzer, forever tarnished as Client No. 9 of a prostitution agency, expects Andrew Cuomo to run for governor next year, leaving open the AG job...

Noted one longtime observer, "The whole idea of returning to Albany is preposterous. You can't go home again. He's a pariah. It wasn't just the prostitutes — there was also Troopergate," the use of state troopers to spy on Republican leader Joe Bruno.

So! P6's sources are Republican operatives, apparently. Or just one of the thousands of powerful Spitzer enemies! (Roger Stone?) Even if this story were true, it's a non-starter. WTF is Spitzer's comeback plan this soon after his "career-ending" scandal? He'll ride the wave of populist resentment against Wall Street back into office? Not a bad thought, but forget it, dude. At least half of those populists who liked how Spitzer fucked with Wall Street are also religious moralists who'll never forgive him for fucking with hookers. Your scandal was bigger than the average affair, Eliot. You'll be back, oh yes! But you have a five year time out, minimum.
At least you have the real estate business.

The editorial workers would invest some of their own money, a Guild representative told the Appeal. But they could hardly acquire the Chronicle on their own, even assuming a heavy markdown from Hearst's 2000 price of $660 million.

Possible buyers fall into a few broad categories:

Old San Francisco money: There's been chatter among Chronicle journalists for years about the possibility of a local investor like private-equity billionaire Warren Hellman or Gap founder Don Fisher buying the paper. It's hard to imagine either of those red-blooded capitalists giving up on the idea of a profitable local newspaper, but then one never puts money into a cash-hemorrhaging hometown paper for purely rational reasons.

New dot-com money: If it's hard to imagine local elders funding a (purposely!) non-profit Chronicle, it's even harder to picture Silicon Valley's many Google million- and billion-aires doing likewise. Newspaper philanthropy would hardly be a hot topic of conversation among young founders on the Web 2.0 cocktail circuit.

Craig Newmark: The San Francisco-based Craigslist founder likes to think of himself as being in a different, entirely more altruistic class of startup founder. In the case of newspapers, he does stand apart, and not just because of his instrumental role in ushering along the decline of print journalism: Newmark has a peculiar (for the tech world) obsession with journalism and politics, leading to investments in content aggregator Daylife and citizen journalism initiative NewAssignment.net and advisory roles at the Center for Citizen Media and Sunlight Foundation.

But even assuming he wanted to buy the Chronicle, it would seem a stretch for Newmark to do so on his own. Craigslist throws off maybe $100 million or $130 million in annual profits, which Newmark must split with other shareholders. The Chronicle is losing $50 million a year just operating, to say nothing of the purchase price.

With enough cash from employees, a fire-sale price from Hearst and maybe one or two more rich investors, it's possible to imagine Newmark picking up the paper, should some sort of expensive guilt complex compel him to do so.

The Chronicle would then be the largest nonprofit paper in the country, ahead of the Poynter Institute's St. Petersburg Times.

More likely, though, would-be newspaper philanthropists will come to the same conclusion as would-be newspaper investors: It makes little sense to invest in fixing the old problems of a dying industry when you can net much more glory or profit starting from scratch.

Caroline Kennedy told associates her decision was related to uncle Ted's illness, according to the Times, which sounded at first, to us and others, like an implausible excuse. Ted Kennedy's brain tumor has been a serious concern since the summer, well before Caroline was in contention for Hillary Clinton's senate seat.

But then came the evidence that Ted Kennedy and his associates were fighting Caroline's decision. After the New York Post, Times and the Associated Press reported Caroline was withdrawing her name from Gov. David Paterson's consideration, indignant denials emerged from Washington, DC, where uncle Ted is the go-to source for all things Kennedy.

NBC News' David Gregory, of the DC bureau's Meet the Press, called into Rachel Maddow's MSNBC show to say he'd heard the rumors were false. And the Washington Post quoted "Kennedy family confidants angrily dismissing" the reports. Even AP backtracked, clarifying that after "wavering briefly," Kennedy had "renewed her determination Wednesday to win appointment to the U.S. Senate seat once held by her slain uncle, Bobby Kennedy."

Things didn't turn out that way. But the back and forth between New York and DC media was easy to mistake for a surrogate to a tug-of-war between Caroline Kennedy and her uncle.

If Caroline Kennedy purportedly told friends she quit over concerns for her uncle's health, Ted seems to have not wanted her to yield to those worries.

And yet he couldn't stop her. She was deeply anxious. And why shouldn't she be? Were Ted Kennedy to soon die, she would will be left to govern without him.

That scenario seemed more likely Kennedy's seizure at Barack Obama's inauguration. When the senator spoke at the Democratic National Convention, he said he wanted to pass the torch to Barack Obama and "a new generation of Americans." The ailing senator made it, but the inaugural incident would have raised the question, particularly among those who love him most, of whether, having done so, he was preparing to say goodbye.

Ted Kennedy would not be content merely to see Obama as president. What of the Kennedy family legacy? What of his own — his initiatives, his allies, his staff? The dream of an eternal Kennedy dynasty is a lot to place on the shoulders of a basically apolitical woman with just a couple of years of government leadership under her belt, inside a municipal bureaucracy at that. And yet Caroline is the best-qualified remaining member of the clan to keep the family name continuously present in the senate — and far preferable to Andrew Cuomo, whose messy divorce from Kerry Kennedy was laced with accusations of infidelity and did not endear him to Ted.

The senator, one might reasonably surmise, must have pushed Caroline hard, right up to the end. But this was one affair he could not put in order.

Maybe so! Kushner Companies' prize property is 666 Fifth Avenue, which they bought in 2007 for $1.8 billion. That's not a great thing to be holding in your portfolio, in the current economic climate. Particularly when you leveraged the hell out of yourself to get it! Today the Times names it as one of the nation's most troubled famous commercial properties, and quotes:

“Many of those buildings are basically underwater,” said Mr. Goade of CresaPartners. “The price they paid was too high to begin with. There’s no way anyone would lend that kind of money today.”

What does all that mean for the little old Observer? Well if you believe a lawsuit filed by an ex-Kushner exec last month, the paper is financed with an illegal slush fund that came out of the money designated to buy 666 5th. But even if that's not true, the fact is that Kushner Co. will probably have to refinance that building this year, vacancy rates are high by historical standards, rents and demand are likely to be lower than expected for the foreseeable future, and it's all bleeding cash.

So Kushner could either say "God, we're losing millions in real estate, and that paper isn't making any money. Get rid of it ASAP!" Or he could say "God, we're losing millions in real estate. What's another couple mil for a little paper? I like it." (Their lenders might disagree with option #2.)

We'll see!

UPDATE: An email from Rubenstein PR's Steve Solomon, who represents Kushner Co.:

The New York Times missed the boat on 666 Fifth Avenue today and led you to some “misspeculation” about the Observer. The fact is that Kushner stabilized 666 Fifth last year when it sold a 49% stake in the tower’s retail portion to Carlyle Group and Crown Acquisitions for $525 million. Kushner will not need to refinance the building this year, as you conjectured. Actually it has an 8-year fixed mortgage on the building so it won’t need to refinance until 2016 at the earliest. It feels the property is in very good financial shape.

"Parsons is keeping his exuberance in check. He said he'll 'most likely' come down for the inauguration, but not move to work for the administration. 'Highly unlikely,' he said with a grin. 'I'm a New Yorker.'"

Oh well that's just great Dick Parsons, we weren't so enthusiastic about having you anyhow. [HERE WE HAVE A PICTURE OF THE TWX STOCK CHART DURING HIS REIGN:]

Parsons wasn't even in the top five names in the mythical Obama administration wannabe flowchart, so it's not a great loss. Hopefully the other two default Successful Black Men in Corporate America That People Have Heard Of will be more willing to listen. [WP]

I mean, as the whole Heidi Fleiss fiasco proved, Hollywood stars are willing to drop major coin at a high-class brothel. But those were just chucklehead straight dudes like Charlie Sheen. No one was really shocked. In this instance, though, we're talking about Will Smith. Lady-wooing, ass-kicking, humanity-saving Will Smith. It would be much easier for him to discreetly pick up a fella at a club or, heck, even find someone online than it would be to involve the whole middleman of a bordello. I was watching that horrid documentary Hookers at the Point yesterday (nothing else was on) and, you know, the girls were talking about how guys go to hookers because there is that illicit thrill, that fear of being caught. But that's with street walkers blowing you in your parked Crown Vic, not sensual liasions with "high class" call-boys. The latter just seems a little too out there in the open—what with money exchanged and all—than would be comfortable for Will f'ing Smith who, sadly, could stand to lose a lot if his sexuality was in question.

Sure there's an argument to be made that one pays for discretion when using an escort service, but with a random money-free hook-up, the star would most likely have more deniability than he would if there were "Client No. 9"-style records of the various transactions. Unless there were photos.

All things considered, we don't quite believe this lascivious hissing. This anonymous madame lady may, you know, just be trying to drum up some business. By, um, supposedly outing one of her clients? Ur doin it rong!1!

Lindsay Lohan and Samantha Ronson
Why They're Gay: Lindsay's super close relationship with with openly gay DJ Ronson has come under lots of scrutiny, mostly because the two seem to be crazy in love. What with the Lindsay Ronson Facebook page and the mysterious hickies, and the drunken lovers quarrels. Evidence seems to suggest that Lohan has spent some time on the cliffs of Acapulco with dear old Muffy. A very public lesbian relationship would be just the perfect capper to a whirlwind few years of drugs, drinking, car wrecks, and train wrecks.
Why They're Not: Lindsay dated socialitis and bee-sting sufferer Brandon Davis, she's from Long Island, and she's young. She just has a best friend, and it can look or even feel like love. Remember that friend you had who you just couldn't get enough of and you thought you'd die when they weren't around because it felt like they held a bigger piece of you than you did? It could just be like that.
Well, Is She? We say no. They're just friends. Very, very close friends. Who like to make out and stuff. Did we say no? We maybe meant yes. Lindsay, for the record, said today that she can date whomever she wants to date.

Oprah & Gayle
Why They're Gay: Oprah, host of a humble Chicago-based talk show, and her perennial gal pal Gayle King are always together. They take road trips! They talk four times a day! They give each other panties! And are mysteriously unattached! (I'm convinced that Steadman is a myth). No grown ladies are this close unless they're illicit, fabulously wealthy lovers. Even America's biggest, fattest, lesbianest loudmouth Rosie O'Donnell thinks they're gay.
Why They're Not: Contrary to my belief, Steadman is in fact a real person and has been with Oprah for some time now. Both Gayle and Oprah vehemently deny the rumors. Plus... Oh fuck it.
They're gay.

Chace Crawford and JC Chasez
Why They're Gay: Because they reportedly were planning on moving in together. JC Chasez was in a boyband. Chace Crawford is on the show Gossip Girl, which is about bitchiness. Plus, look at Chace's hair.
Why They're Not: Tipsters have told us that JC is very "straight." So too is Chace, if his publicists are to be believed. Just because two cute boys like to sing and dance and have floppy hair and hang out a lot doesn't mean they're gay together. Oh mercy yes it means they're gay, but not necessarily together.
Well, Are They? A boy can dream. Though, isn't the gays' eternal optimism about every pretty young thing Hollywood churns out getting a little tired, and maybe even...sad? Sigh.

Matthew McConaughey and Every Man He's Ever Worked Out With
Why They're Gay: The actor lurves to hang out with famous cyclist Lance Armstrong, mostly while shirtless and sweaty and running. They are photographed all the time together, and a little while ago they adopted little Jake Gyllenhaal (a "cub") to be their plaything and they all worked out together and then went home so Lance could perform his famous Tour De Pants dance. Plus, his name is Lance.
Why They're Not: They told People magazine that they weren't doin' it, so that must be believed. Also, they're pretty ungay. Lance Armstrong has been something of a rake since he became famous and divorced his loving and devoted wife. He dated an Olsen for God's sake! Also, Matthew McConaughey plays the bongo drums nude in his front yard. That's not very gay. Had it been a marimba, then maybe.
Well, Are They? Nah. Though we do hear rumors from friends of friends of friends that McConaughey has hit on them at clubs, we don't believe these guys as a couple. They're just two dudes who like to get oiled up and run on the beach together, then go back to Matt's place and play with Lance's Schwinn.

Tom Cruise and the Well-Worn Photo of C. Thomas Howell He Keeps Under the Mattress
Why They're Gay: Everyone is always yakking about Tom Cruise being secretly gay, but no one ever seems to suggest who he might be gay with. Sure there are the rumors that he and Travolta just fly in a plane load of anonymous twinks for a weekend's worth of fun, but there must be someone specific that catches Tom's fancy. We like to think it's his Outsiders costar, C. Thomas, who Tom has held a torch for all these years. When Katie's away out comes the picture, the lights go down, and somewhere in Oklahoma S.E. Hinton feels a chill go up her spine.
Why They're Not: Because these are just the sad imaginings of someone who should leave his damn house more often.
Well, Are They? We kid, we kid. Andrew Morton, in his indepth biography of the actor, says that Cruise is, in fact, not gay at all. He's just very strange. The gay rumors started early in Tom's career, and he's been unable to put the kibosh on them since. And, huh, we actually buy that.

What do you think, dear shamefully closeted readers? Are these celebrity twosomes in fact romantically connected? Does it matter? Do you care? Is C. Thomas Howell still alive?

"I've worked in the entertainment industry, and in paticular with Hip Hop for over 10 years. I've been in the room with rappers and celebrities when they've used deragatory words such as Fags, and Homos. I've wanted so many times to step up and say something, but I didn't want to out myself. I didn't want to be put on blast. I didn't want to lose my so-called friendships. But, what bothered me most was when I heard many rappers and celebrities use those words and they themselves were hiding their sexuality just as I was."

It is ironic that the most homophobic male happens to be the one who is trying desperately to deflect from his own sexual identity crisis, and distract attention away from himself. It's so easy to call someone out of their name, especially calling another man a faggot, or punk, or homo.

Okay, so "many rappers and celebrities" he knows are closeted gays. A numerical hint: it should be more than one, and not just in hip hop, but celebrities also. Good start!

So, here I stand with many men in Hip Hop who refuse to hide. We have helped shape, build, and create Hip Hop and have just as much say as those who feel the need to degrade, and denegrate our contributions. Yes, we are here. We are all up in Hip Hop - your stylists, publicists, managers, producers, songwriters, ghostwriters, video directors, journalists, product managers, tour managers, lawyers, accountants, and your friends.

Christ, it could be anybody. Any of your friends!

I wrote this book many years ago. Long before there was a mention of Karrine Steffans and her infamous tell-all book, Confessions of a Video Vixen. I loved her book and her truth. It took courage for her to tell her story.

A good friend, who is an accomplished R&B singer/songwriter, had been after me to tell my story for a while. We have been friends for many years and I never told him about my life

Who is this accomplished R&B singer/ songwriter man? I'm guessing it's someone from Jodeci, maybe? Or not.

Deep within the confines of Hip-Hop is a prominent gay sub-culture. A world that industry insiders are keenly aware of, but choose to ignore. From the testosterone of men striving to be on top and in control, to the "by any means necessary" bravado in an industry that thrives on power, homosexuality is a reality at nearly every level of Hip-Hop

Russell Simmons. I'm getting strong vibes. Or it could be someone totally opposite, like Suge Knight. It will be interesting to find out!

One good friend, Emil Wilbekin, Editor-in-Chief of Giant Magazine gave me the kindest words of advice. He told me, "Terrance, you can only tell your truth. You have lots of friends who support you. I am one of them." His words helped me during the initial phase of writing the book.

Another friend, a celebrated record label publicist, who has helped launch many legendary careers, told me, "Don't worry about what people are going to think. This is your story. Write your book!"

The editor of Giant clearly knows something. Email us, Emil Wilbekin! It's simple journalistic solidarity.

In conclusion, it sounds like Ja Rule fits the general profile here. Then again, so do most famous rappers of the last decade. But that is really pure speculation, because I have no idea! Do YOU?

[The whole "Parsing XYZ" construction stolen from Jack Flack]

Young Jared is still thought by some to be but a pawn of his parents, specifically felon dad Charles. But his folks surely wouldn't have approved of his relationship with noted not-Jewish person Ivanka Trump, and that whole newspaper-buying thing doesn't have much to do with the family's occasionally-legal business. Regardless, the family remains in business together.

Last year, Charles and Jared sold a bunch of their Jersey properties to refocus on Manhattan. They bought some buildings for ridiculous sums, just before the market slowed to a crawl, and now the Post regularly updates us with news of Kushner's "credit crunch" and complicated real estate stories we don't quite understand that seem to imply that Kushner's crumbly buildings are costing him lots and lots of money.

But now Jared's making a play for Newsday! So maybe he's confident about things! Or maybe he's making a play for another paper to appear to be confident and independent, like when Barry Diller pretended to want to buy Yahoo! He's dumping his girlfriend and buying newspapers because things are just so awesome for him he can take risks. Maybe he'll run for Governor!

Or maybe Ivanka just found someone richer?

UNATTACHED [NYP via NYM]