Friday, February 22, 2008

Advertisements For Myself

Today, Saturday and Sunday, I will be at the WonderCon in San Francisco. I'll be hosting some terrific panels...and you can see a list of them here. Find out all about the WonderCon over on this website and show up there. It's going to be quite rainy in S.F. this weekend so the event might not be as crowded as you'd expect and dealers might be more willing to give bargains. If nothing else, you can enjoy the pungent aroma of Wet Fans.

I'll be signing copies of my new book, Kirby: King of Comics. Yes, it's out and I'm told most major dealers should have their supplies next week...but they may not have 'em for long. My publisher says that every last copy of the first printing has been ordered by merchants or distributors, and they're hurrying to get a second printing on the presses. We'll be fixing a few teensy typos for it...and I should mention that in a week or so, I'll be opening a section of this website devoted to corrections and amplifications on the book.

I'll also probably be signing copies of the new issue of Will Eisner's The Spirit which came out this week from DC Comics. It's the first to be written by the awe-inspiring team of Sergio Aragonés and Your Obedient Weblogmaster, trodding in very large footprints. Mike Ploog and Mike Farmer did a superb job with the illustration and there's a wonderful cover by Jordi Bernet. Next issue is drawn (and drawn well) by Paul Smith. Also at some point during the con, Sergio and I will be over at the Dark Horse booth signing copies of the current Groo mini-series. (By the way: I'm currently assembling the letter column for the last issue of that mini-series and I'm short a few letters. Here's your chance, people.)

On Monday, I will be teaching a half-day class in Animation Voiceover Acting at Voice One, which is a respected school and recording studio. If you're in that area and interested in doing cartoon voices, you might want to check it out. Here's a link with all the info.

End of advertisements. We now return you to our regularly scheduled blog.

• Posted at 1:05 AM · LINK

From the E-Mailbag...

Duke Haring makes two points and I'm going to respond to them one at a time. Here's the first one...

First, the subtle but salient point Mr. Morris fails to distinguish is that Bill Clinton was not impeached for having an affair with Monica Lewinsky. He was impeached for lying about it under oath. Certainly, I don't live in John McCain's head, but I believe that was the basis for his impeachment vote.

I don't live in McCain's head either but after hearing him discuss it a few times in interviews, I got the feeling that the basis for his impeachment vote was that if you want the Republican nomination for president, you'd better not cross the extreme right wing of that party. Maybe it's just me projecting my viewpoint but McCain sure seemed to think the whole accusation against Clinton was nonsense and I remember him saying several times a conviction was impossible. But he still voted to let the process go forward and supported it and I guess I was disappointed that he went along with it. I'd like to think the John McCain of an earlier time would have parted company with the Republican mainstream on this. He used to do that once in a while when he thought they were wrong.

In one sense, you're right that it was about alleged lying, not alleged infidelity. But I think in a larger sense, it was about seeing how much they could embarrass Clinton and lower public opinion of him by trotting out as many details of salacious conduct as possible. And if Democrats applied the same sleazy manuever, they'd gin up some investigation of McCain's contacts with lobbyists and use that as an excuse to dig up and publicize every detail of the man's supposed affair. That would be wrong but it would be quite comparable to the process McCain endorsed in the Clinton/Lewinsky matter.

Here's the other part of Duke's message...

Secondly, while I am no fan of Sen. McCain — my vote went to Ron Paul — I find it interesting that the New York Times sat on this diddling the lobbyist story until after its endorsement helped McCain to effectively lock up the nomination. If the Times had run the story when it first had it, we might now be talking about the possibilities of Obama vs. Romney — not that this is any improvement in my mind. I'm just sayin'.

I doubt the story, at least in the tepid version the Times published, is going to do any harm to McCain's chances. It may even help him win over the kind of voter who thought the Times endorsement was a good reason not to vote for McCain. But it is odd that the Times endorsed the guy while it sat on this story and then released it now. The whole thing seems puzzling to me. What I'd like to know is: Do they think he had this affair? If so, why publish the story if you're going to tap dance around that? If not, why publish the story at all? If you aren't sure, why publish it now?

• Posted at 12:47 AM · LINK