Once there was an EBAY MAGAZINE...

What? You could go to a newsstand and buy EBAY...the MAGAZINE??

Now, nobody would even think of doing a website version for such a thing. Hell, all you need to know about EBAY you can find on its website. Or, Google a few terms and find out what people love and hate about EBAY.

The funny thing about EBAY MAGAZINE is that the staffers knew all about my BLOG, which ranted and raved at the stupidity of some of the sellers, the bad manners of some of the bidders, and the frustrations of using the site.

And yes, I targeted some of my pet peeves, like celebrity autograph forgers and stinky sluts selling their underwear.

There was enough "cranky" humor that one of the fake ads I put on my blog turned up in the magazine.

And guess what, they actually asked PERMISSION before they used it.

Of course the site is long gone (which is why I "purpled out" the full address...you can't reach it). The "free website" concept ("we make our money with banner ads") failed. You do remember Geocities, don't you? Fortunately, after struggling along year after year, they graciously gave us warning when they decided to pull the plug. We had several months to copy off everything and go move somewhere else, if we felt like paying.

I had a few punny ads promoting eBAYER aspirin. The one the magazine used was on a page devoted to Ebay pests and jerks including those who get more joy out of SNIPING and beating someone else out of the item, than the item itself:

Another ad:

My site, without any help from Big Brother Google, was very popular. People regularly linked to it from their eBay ads and "about me" eBay pages, and it was a topic of conversation on the various eBay message boards. Most loved the site for offering comic truths and salty advice on how to better sell items and have some manners.

Some sellers threatened to SUE me, because I ridiculed their moronic mistakes. As Judy Tenuta used to say: "Come and get me, pigs!" Many would email me with examples of dopey ads they saw: "This would be GREAT for your website." Spelling mistakes were always fun:

Some gag pages had recognition humor:

Some pages were designed to call attention to eBay problems...to "name and shame." Why, it only took another ten years for eBay to decide that, yes, unsanitary auctions should NOT be on the site...and another five years before they put in filters to make SURE some stinkers couldn't post anything dirty. Like...

Mostly, like consumer advocates who appeared on talk shows and news broadcasts, my role was to alert buyers to beware of scams. This included forgeries. People somehow get the idea, even now, that if it's on eBay, it MUST be legit. But no, eBay always admits, "we're JUST a venue," and they have no idea what's forged or not. They rely mostly on VeRO members ("Verified Rights Owner" reps) who will point out counterfeit goods and other fakery. This is fine for SOME things...Louis Vuitton and Gucci and Disney have every reason to knock off the knock-off vendors so people buy the real thing. But most celebrities don't have a VeRO rep, or don't want to pay one to save their fans from buying forgeries. They figure, "let the buyer beware."

Somebody complaining to eBay and saying, "this picture looks like a forgery, do something..." would get, "we're just a venue, contact the celebrity and ask the celebrity to contact us and stop the auction."

Here's one typical outrageous example, and it came not from some weasel forging stuff in his basement, but from a well known autograph dealer who supposedly knew his stuff and could tell a fake. But in this case, didn't:

When the site eventually disappeared and Geocities went under, some people asked me to bring the site back. I suppose, if I was more of an entrepeneur, I could've fashioned a dot.com and become the Ralph Nader of eBay, and PERHAPS got enough banner ads to make it worthwhile, but I was more interested in writing books, doing celeb photography, and knocking off magazine fiction. But...maybe one day you'll see me on "Shark Tank," asking for a million dollars to start that SURE-THING website where people can out dishonest sellers and fume about their frustrations. Only I have a feeling the "Shark Tank" people will say, "Nah, we won't invest. Go put an ad up on eBay, offering to do the site, and see how many bids you get from potential backers!"

Back When Photographers (like ME) got PAID for their WORK

I was going through my files when I came across this tearsheet.

Hmmm...why did I keep this? Then I realized, one of my photos must've been used in this issue of SPY Magazine.

I looked at the celebrity faces, and figured I probably took the photo of Buddy Hackett. Yes, indeed.

AND I GOT PAID FOR IT.

Those were the days. Imagine, a magazine doing some whimsical article and going to the trouble of contacting photo agencies with a list of needs, then going through selections on each celeb to pick the one they wanted...and WRITING A CHECK.

Oh yes...and giving PHOTO CREDITS, too:

Today, a newsstand magazine (endangered species) would probably use a free publicity photo. Maybe, if it had a website version as well, the photo editor would be subscribed to one of those cheap-o stock photo companies that offers a subscription for $25 a month, and gives a photographer a dollar each time an item is used.

Back in the day, I'd check the mail and get a surprise check from the photo agency I was with...usage in SPY or PEOPLE, or maybe on the NBC or CBS news. Or in a book. Pictures I took were like money in the bank. These days, the familiar phrase from photographers is "I'm SCREWED." As in: "The X agency is willing to buy ALL rights to my photo and pay me chump change." Or "I uploaded hundreds of photos to Z agency and still haven't made enough for them to bother depositing money in my Paypal account."

Hell, anyone with a cellphone can take celebrity pix and would be glad to brag about the credit and NOT be paid at all. Websites routinely grab pix off Facebook or anywhere and figure it's "fair use" or "public domain" or "freedom of speech" and dare anyone to send a lawyer letter (which these days costs more than what a photographer could reasonably ask for from the usage).

We used to be called "shutterbugs." Now we shudder, and we're bugged. We're told, "Oh, give your photos away. Get the credit. Make money with some 9-5 job like being an accountant or a school teacher or something." Right, and miss out on all the assignments that involve being around to take pix at an interview, and be too tired to go out in the evening and cover a premiere, banquet or some other event.

I contacted a very famous photo agency and explained that I had exclusive pix of a huge range of celebrities, from Henry Kissinger and Frank Sinatra to Joan Rivers and Sammy Davis Jr., and from Tim Curry and Billy Joel to Tennessee Williams and Harold Pinter. I was ignored.

I guess I forget to say, "...and I'll give them to you FREE, all I want is a CREDIT."

ST. JOHN THE MARTYR - "I'll Be Destroyed By Christmas" - GOD has LEFT the BUILDING + Pedophile Priest Expose

You can ex-communicate a priest.

You can do the same to a church. I mean, if good money is involved.

Here's The New York Times, August of 2017, reporting on how the Catholics of New York were crucified on the altar of the almighty dollar.

The church is supposed to guide its flock by offering hope. No? No, not in New York City, where real estate values are high, and the heads of the Catholic Church have dollar signs blinding their eyes.

This is the same church that has the record of ignoring pedophile priests and even shunting them to other parishes to avoid prosecution.

Let's keep that thought for a little later. I have an anecdote to tell about Cardinal O'Connor.

St. John the Martyr was once the Knox Presbyterian Church, built in 1887. The Catholics bought it on September 25, 1904 for $39,000 and you'd think that DeBlasio or some of the local politicians in the area (Ben Kallos for example) would've pushed for it to be declared a landmark.

You can Google how a church can be pronounced unholy. My guess is that you wave a few Benjamins under a Bishop's nose and the geezer in the satin dress stands in front of the church, does the sign of the cross backward and then gives the finger.

Maybe not? Why even show up there, or the other churches now sanctioned to put money in the hands of the church elders? Just write a note at a lawyer's office. Isn't it magical how, with some medieval gesture, some mumbling words, somebody can be ex-communicated and a church can be magically turned back into just a building put up for sale?

Let's not pick on the Catholics, of course. Aside from mosques, which seem to be doing ok, any type of church, and any synagogue had better have affluent people donating, because the tax shelters and no rent and other perks are just not enough. Not to keep the elders living in style. Hell, if they wanted to give up worldly possessions, they could've become monks.

The warning signs that St. John the Martyr wasn't going to be saved, or turned into a mosque or something, become obvious when the stores on the corner suddenly went under.

The "law" regarding greedy landlords building monstrosities is simple: they can only block the sky by taking over corner buildings. Nothing mid-block. Watta concession.

The weasels scout out small apartment buildings and tenement buildings, and begin their patterns of bribery and harassment. Shut off heat or hot water on the tenants. Don't renew the lease on the stores. Wait a while. Then start building something ugly and expensive for the hedge fund weasels, oily Middle East slime, Russian mafia kingpins, and every other damnable rodent and parasite taking a nibble at The Big Apple with corrupt earnings.

Conveniently, St. John the Martyr was next to the corner buildings. Wow, what a BIG MONSTROSITY can be put up! God love it!

Politicians are supposed to make sure these grotesque and soulless buildings aren't TOO tall, but landlords know how to get around those rules.

The above pictures show the way it was in August of 2019.

The landlord didn't renew leases, and was probably tormenting the tenants in the above apartments to either take a few bucks to go away or suffer the consequences. Next door...

Was there a Divine Light to shine down and save it?

NO.

I wanted to get over to the church and take some pictures when I first saw the green panels go up, and the workmen being termites and crawling all over scaffolds and the deteriorating face of the building.

Guess what. They work fast when they're well paid and BIGGER MONEY is involved. While Councilman (and thirsty Borough President wanna-be) Ben Kallos recently cried about how ugly scaffolds stay up in his neighborhood for years, BOOM.

St. John the Divine turned into a skeleton of rubble VERY quickly.

All over Manhattan, storefronts are empty. Yes, every now and then what used to be a video rental place will, after six months of being empty, turn into a DOG GROOMING SALON. Yes, what was once a bookstore will, after six months of being empty, turn into another NAIL SALON. But more often, the bodega, the restaurant, the curio shop...remains empty year after year. Greedhead landlords hope that a TARGET will want to buy, or an upscale MORTON WILLIAMS gourmet shop, but that doesn't happen that often. The real money is knocking the store AND the building down, and creating a glass-and-steel residence for the rich.

What's that Zevon line? "I wanna live on the Upper East Side and NEVER go down in the street." Yep. You don't have to, if you can order online and get everything delivered. Who needs stores? Those are for the hoi polloi, and they can go fuck off to Newark or Jersey City and get shot to pieces.

GOD HAS LEFT THE BUILDING.

Admittedly, these are not good times for the Christians who believe in Jesus, or for those who follow his religion, Judaism. Either way, those old-fashioned religions are losing followers, because people can see there are no angels in clouds, and they find it harder and harder to find excuses for the amount of suffering and stupidity in the world. It's also harder and harder to wonder why the hell GOD would care whether you wear a beanie or not, have two sets of dishes, eat or not eat meat on Friday, use or not use birth control, or forgive pedophile priests who should certainly know better than to commit sins of the flesh.

And so I return to the pedophile priest issue with a little anecdote.

At one time, I was the acquisitions editor for a publishing company. It was unusual, being on the other side of the fence, and being the one reading book proposals instead of writing them. The job had some perks, including bringing celebrities (who had written autobiographies) to book conventions everywhere from Miami to Phoenix.

Religious celebrity Cardinal O'Connor didn't submit a book proposal to me; he was mentioned in a sample chapter sent in by a novice author, Father Terry German.

Father Terry looked like someone from a 1940's movie, a little guy with a touch of Mickey Rooney and a bit of tv character actor John Fiedler to him. Wispy hair, ruddy complexion, he was perhaps 55 or 60. The elfin ex-priest was offering his insight into the problem of pedophile priests. He knew some of the perps, and most certainly counseled a lot of victims over the years.

His last residence was a room at St. Patrick's Cathedral. This was the domain of Cardinal O'Connor, who was probably the most famous Cardinal since Cardinal Spellman. Father Terry had been jotting down names and places and victims for some time, but being a true believer, he felt that the best thing to do would be to visit one of God's most powerful men on Earth. No, the Pope was too far away. But Cardinal O'Connor? The great Cardinal O'Connor?

Father Terry met with the Great Man, and explained, probably with his pale face reddening, and his voice climbing an octave, his outrage over pedophile priests. "It must be stopped! They must be removed!" He'd shown the same fiery outrage in meeting with me to discuss his book proposal.

The Cardinal looked skeptical. Wasn't Father Terry being a bit too dramatic? Did he have any evidence at all?

"I've been keeping notes," Father Terry explained. He told Cardinal O'Connor how the manuscript was in his little desk, and that it named names. He was hoping the good Cardinal would read the pages, and then take action.

Apparently, Cardinal O'Connor did just that; Father Terry discovered that his manuscript was missing. He hoped it meant that Cardinal O'Connor was going to take action on the men Father Terry wrote about.

Cardinal O'Connor took action against the man that wrote the book; Father Terry was ex-communicated and left homeless.

I'd thought of titling the book, "Losing My Religion," but the question was what kind of book could this be, with all the facts now missing? What he now had, was pages of accusations that could lead to a libel suit if published.

Since being ejected from St. Patrick's, Father Terry moved from place to place, staying a week with some good-hearted person, moving into a shelter, finding somebody else who could put him up for a while. One night, he showed up at the front door. How he got the address, I have no idea, but here was this little aging leprechaun with the high husky voice, suddenly dropping to his knees in front of me, his hands in a prayerful pose: "Can you let me have a peanut butter sandwich?"

He got a dinner, but ultimately, he didn't get a book deal.

Some years later, age 51 he tried (1994), to sue Pope John Paul II, Cardinal O'Connor and the Catholic Church for $120 million.

According to a piece in the Sun-Sentinal:

"German says he gave up all of his "worldly goods" when he took his vows in 1964 in exchange for a promise that the church would care for him until his death. The underlying assumption, of course, was that he would "live a life guided by the established principles" of the Catholic Church...

German says the church - by acquiescing to pervasive sexual and financial misconduct - broke its part of the covenant and he was left with no choice but to resign, which he did in 1989.

"The church wasn't enforcing its own rules, so he wasn't able to live according to the church's own rules. He had to live with people stealing and sexual alliances with small boys," said Carl Person, German's lawyer.

N"ow he is on street corners - foraging for clothes in New York City garbage bins or visiting soup kitchens. His unemployment benefits ran out a few weeks ago and he recently was evicted from his $324-a-month one-room apartment in Manhattan. He said he cannot keep a job because the church has branded him a troublemaker."

Obviously his lawsuit was not successful. I have a feeling he moved quite a few times before there was another blip of publicity for him. This happened in 2007, in Las Vegas. During the sex assault trial of Rev. George Chaanine, Father Terry spoke to a reporter for the Review-Journal:

"Terence German, a former Jesuit priest...said he wasn't surprised...

...The public doesn't "realize how much force the administrative priest has over any job," said German, a current Las Vegas resident who has observed the unfolding case. "You can be out of there if you don't do what the priest wants. ... People like that are just afraid."

There's a website, bishopaccountability.org that features a page on whistleblowers. Father Terry is on it, but there's no information on him past 2007.

I don't know if he's still in Las Vegas. I do know if he comes to Manhattan, he'll find less churches than ever. He can't go to St. John the Divine begging for a place to stay or a meal. A dozen other churches have shuttered, and as the real estate business booms, more of God's houses will be smashed flat.

Blackface at The New Yorker - - or, when is PC just PATHETIC?

The funny thing most New Yorker cartoons...is how unfunny they are.

Lately, let's add something else: how UN-PC their attempts at being PC are.

An example:

It seems that the cartoon editor has been instructing artists to "be INCLUSIVE...draw characters OF COLOR." That's OF COLOR, not colored-in characters?

The "black" in this cartoon looks colored in, doesn't it? Nothing too ethnic about the woman otherwise. How many women like her do you see at Whole Foods buying kale? The percentage is low.

If blacks actually read The New Yorker, they might picket the office. As in: "Black Humor Matters...don't portray us using blackface." Richard Pryor this is not. Wanda Sykes this is not. Who else do you want to name? Steve Harvey? SNL's Michael Che? Any of them going to be talking about Yoda? Any of them use the expression "blows you out of the water?" Blows, maybe. The rest, maybe not.

Maybe Rachel Dolezol. She tried to pass for black and it wasn't funny.

How about THIS one? What WOULD be funny is if "Black Lives Matter" and various other angry and outraged black groups decided that it is offensive to use Negro Stereotype features in a cartoon.

THIS New Yorker cartoonist is making SURE that everyone knows this is a MIXED COUPLE, and that one of them is BLACK. BLACK. VERY VERY BLACK.

Does the hair give you a clue? The huge lips?

YUP. Another way the kneejerk New Yorker staff wants to show how PC they are is to leave NO DOUBT when they're doing something noble with colored people. Oh, "people of color." GOT to remember one phrase is OFFENSIVE and the other ISN'T.

Poor poor New Yorker. They just can't get it right.

They aren't alone, of course. Consider NBC, the network that got a lot of criticism for airing "Sanford and Son," which portrayed two blacks as nothing but JUNKMEN, with a bunch of stereotypical cohorts like "Aunt Esther," who squinted and said, "Fish eyed fool" and "I'm gonna get you, sucka!"

A few years later, they got even more criticism for airing "The Cosby Show," which dared to ignore race and show (gasp) an affluent upper-middle-class black family that didn't dress ethnic. (Well, there WERE those God-awful sweaters Cosby wore). Either way, Redd Foxx or Bill Cosby...wrong, wrong.

As for The New Yorker, if this is "woke," go fluff up your organic husk-filled non-goose-feather pillows and go back to sleep.

"They Tell Funny Anecdotes at Funerals, Don't They?"

Alastair Sim as SCROOGE - updated for modern times

2008: How ROLLING STONE magazine Helped MUSIC PIRACY fester and grow

It seems insane now that ANYONE could say "sharing" music doesn't cause damage.

We know artists who are on GoFundMe because they aren't getting their royalties. We know hundreds of record stores went out of business because people were happy to get mp3 files FREE rather than pay for records (and extra cartridges and needles and a turntable). We know that the monsters who profited most from piracy involve organized crime, Russian scumbags, the Pirate Bay Swedish meatballs and Kim Dotcom, among others, all living like kings.

But in 2008? Rolling Stone was not only rating some of the blogs, but counseling people on how to avoid getting caught, and how to lobby politicians to make sure the Internet stays "FREE." About the only thing they didn't do, was repeat catch-phrases like "Freedom of Speech" and "copyright is copywrong."

It's a bit of an irony that soon after this, Rolling Stone began to sink, the number of physical copies on newsstands shrank, and they were offering up themselves up for sale. They went so far as to put the adorable-looking Boston Marathon Bomber on the cover, either as a provocateur move to get attention, or because Jann Wenner was smitten by his sexy looks. They've tried a "re-launch" recently on glossy paper, and continue to load up every issue with Jann Wenner's faves (boy band heroes who look like jailbait).

Unbelievable, that anyone with a brain could endorse copying copyrighted work and illegal distribution at grand larceny-level. This isn't copying off an album onto cassette for a friend. It's maniacs hell-bent on loading up their blogs with complete discographies, with the glory going to themselves and money too (via Paypal donations). Pure evil. What else do you call it, when bloggers relentlessly post and re-post and re-up and get new corrupt companies from Megaupload to Ydray to host the illegal files? EVIL. OK, add STUPIDITY. Add short-sighted idiocy. And then people wonder why Steve Miller, Carly Simon and so many others simply stopped making new albums. What the fuck for? So they can be embarrassed by low sales?

Rolling Stone. Who was editing the magazine in 2008? Benedict Arnold?

We know what happened.

A few lawyer-weasels found loopholes, insisting nobody could PROVE that their wonderful clients actually downloaded or uploaded anything. "Oh, your honor, somebody ELSE got into that house, used the computer, downloaded all those files...not MY client."

Other lawyer-weasels had other excuses: "Oh, your honor, don't sentence this fine, fine person to pay treble damages, or punitive damages, or ANY damages. At best, my client should ONLY be charged a dollar per song, which is all these files are worth."

With GOOGLE, owner of Blogspot, the prime offender, and now one of the most powerful companies in the world, the RIAA and record labels couldn't lobby politicians to pass strict laws blocking the Rapidshare and Megaupload companies. Besides, GOOGLE's partners in crime, like Wikipedia and hundreds of other websites thriving by not paying royalties for "fair use" (ha ha) photos and content, were behind the banner of "Freedom of Speech." Yeah, THAT'S THE TICKET, we should be able to use any photo, or any music, and USE it without paying anything. It's for "review purposes." It's "Freedom of Speech." And what's that phrase that the notorious PUZO.ORG forum likes so much? "WE LIKE FREE!"

Is it too late? Well, if "morality" means making sure Kevin Spacey doesn't make another movie, and Al Franken can't run for office again, then MAYBE, that same "morality" would apply to making sure the Internet is just a tad more LEGAL. Then again, didn't we just read about a Russian cartel that made $100 million by hacking into bank accounts in America and funneling all the money and then disappearing into their Iron Curtain caves, never to be prosecuted? Hell, stealing money is "Freedom of Speech" too.