Everyone seems to have had a good time at this year's Mid-Ohio Con here in Columbus, Ohio…which is where I'm blogging from as we speak. This has always been one of the friendliest comic/s-f/media conventions around and its new proprietors are continuing that tradition. I didn't hear a bit of industry news here — it's not that kind of convention — but I sure got to see and talk with a lot of great people…especially yesterday when I interviewed the great Joe Kubert for an hour. Joe has been drawing comics since John McCain was in knee pants and it's warming to hear that he still enjoys doing it. I did Joe the great favor of not giving him the big hug and a kiss that Sergio sent for him.

That was the best part of the con. Oddest for me was probably today when I found myself fighting my way through a mob of several hundred 13-year-old girls in cheerleader costumes. Something called Cheersport was in the adjoining hall, having a Grand Championship competition…throngs of young ladies doing acrobatics and precision moves and hurling one another in the air. As I hiked to the comic convention this morn, they all seemed to be limbering up and/or practicing in my path, and I came seriously close to being high-kicked into the next county. I had to peek in and watch a bit of the contest, of course. The teenagers all seemed to be lovely and talented and judging from the volume of the music they dance to, by the time they graduate middle school, they will all be stone deaf.

Back at the Mid-Ohio Con: My longtime pal Tony Isabella and I did a panel today about the late, greater-than-great Jack Kirby. Otherwise, I signed stuff, bought stuff, talked to people, dodged cheerleaders and enjoyed myself. I won't list all the people I saw because I used to do that in con reports and everyone thought it was boring unless they were mentioned.

Last night, a gang of us hiked down to a nearby outlet of B.D.'s Mongolian Barbecue, which is one of those chains I wish we had in Los Angeles. As I explained after last year's visit, I've always liked the concept of Monogolian Barbecue but most of those I've patronized have been disappointing. B.D.'s is excellent and I'm not sure why all such restaurants don't equal their standard. All it seems to involve is a wider, fresher selection of ingredients to toss in your bowl and have the chef stir-fry. There are no secret recipes, no impossible-to-copy procedures. Just better selection is all it takes. Why is that so hard for the places in my neck of the woods?

This evening, much the same gang went to a Gordon Biersch's for supper. These, we have in Los Angeles and every single time I go to one with friends, everyone else enjoys what they order and I get stuck with an inedible piece of something you could have a cobbler use to resole your dress shoes. The Gordon Biersch's in Columbus continues that tradition so I've decided to start a tradition of my own: Never going to another Gordon Biersch's.

Otherwise, it's been a good trip and Carolyn says the cats in my backyard are well-fed and fine. Tomorrow, Len Wein and I get to head home and perhaps unpack the mystery of Southwest Airlines Boarding Passes. A whistle-blowing Southwest employee has given me some insight which I'll share with you later.

A lot of folks, self included, are pleased that O.J. Simpson may very well spend the rest of his life in prison. It's the kind of good news that's put grins on many faces and spring into many steps. Today at the convention, I heard people greet their friends with, "Did you see the footage of him when the verdict was read?"

There's been a grey cloud since the day he was acquitted and it wasn't just that one murderer went free. It was that we had this jarring wake-up call that sometimes our criminal justice system just don't work so good. There's been a small but noticeable drop in support for the Death Penalty in this country over the last two decades. Some of it, I'm guessing, is because with DNA testing freeing so many people from Death Row — people found "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" — we don't trust that system as much as we used to. The first O.J. verdict was also a big contributor to that decline in trust.

Here's a thought that occurred to me…

We all know O.J. killed Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman. This may be a futile wish but I'd still like to see him make a believable, credible confession. It would be good for our national equilibrium, I think. It might even force some people into a little more confrontation with the failings of our courts. Let's make it inarguable that the system got The Crime of the Century wrong. Also, as a buff who spent waaaay too much of his life watching that trial and reading all those damn books, I'd like to know a few things, starting with how close to the actual truth did all the criminologists — professional and armchair variety — get? Then there are details of the case: Did he really ditch the knife at the airport? Just what did happen to those bloody clothes he had on? Did he go to the house intending to kill her…or just to scare her and it got out of hand? Questions like that.

Some O.J. watchers believe he's been incrementally confessing over the years; that some perverse part of the guy is dying to brag that he's so smart that he got away with murder and from time to time, a bit of that leaks out. I'm wondering if it'll now explode in a gusher. Maybe he'll just go nuts and/or decide to go for broke…sell the confession as book or pay-per-view special and pour all the money into lawyers for his appeal. If a guy's sitting in prison for kidnapping, what good does it do his reputation to keep denying he's a murderer? We might still find out what happened to that knife.

It's been a while since I've reminded you (which I do, in part to remind myself) how polls can be way off. When several different ones are close to one another they usually — not always — are a good indicator. But sometimes, they're far enough off where you've gotta say, "At least one of these is not giving us an accurate portrait of these voters."

In the great state of Minnesota, challenger Al Franken is attempting to unseat incumbent Norm Coleman. The Survey USA poll now has Franken at 33% and Coleman at 43%. In the meantime, the Princeton Survey poll conducted for the Minneapolis-St. Paul Star Tribune currently has Franken at 43% and Coleman at 34%. At least one of these is not giving us an accurate portrait of these voters.

How nice to see the words, "A jury found Simpson guilty." Simpson plans to appeal on the grounds that the judge never let him try on any gloves.

An awful lot of my correspondents — including at least one who says they're voting the McCain-Palin ticket — have been trying to convince me I've been way too charitable towards Ms. Palin. Maybe so. All of them admonish me for not mentioning an obvious reason she did better in the debate than she did in one-on-ones with Charles Gibson or Katie Couric: No follow-up questions. Good point…and it's yet another reason why these "debate" formats don't serve the interests of the voting viewers. Anything a candidate says oughta be tested with at least a little cross-examination.

We have, of course, an example. In the debate and also in her recent speeches, Palin has criticized Obama for saying that U.S. troops in Afghanistan have killed civilians. Here she is yesterday, speaking from the safe haven of Fox News…

I wanted to talk about his proposal to increase government spending by another trillion dollars. (AUDIO GAP) that he's made about the war that I think make my world — disqualify someone from consideration as the next commander in chief. Some of the comments that he's made about Afghanistan, what we're doing there, supposably, just air raiding villages and killing civilians. That's reckless and I want to talk about things like that.

That's quite a charge. Obama is smearing our soldiers by making this questionable or even false assertion. It cries out for a follow-up question like, "But isn't Obama just saying the same thing that our Secretary of Defense has admitted?"

Defense Secretary Robert Gates offered the people of Afghanistan his "personal regrets" Wednesday for U.S. airstrikes that have killed civilians and said he would try to improve the accuracy of air warfare, the imperfect fallback for U.S. commanders who say they don't have enough ground forces for the deepening Afghanistan war. "As I told them, I offer all Afghans my sincere condolences and personal regrets for the recent loss of innocent life as a result of coalition airstrikes," Gates said after meeting with Afghan President Hamid Karzai. "While no military has ever done more to prevent civilian casualties, it is clear that we have to work even harder."

One suspects that if civilian casualties have reached the level such that Gates felt it was necessary to apologize, they must be pretty bad. But even his words taken at face value validate everything Obama has claimed. So, Governor Palin, what's the deal here? Is our Secretary of Defense out there smearing the troops and offering apologies for deaths that didn't happen?

I can understand that no one at Fox News is likely to ask her that question. Let's see if anyone ever does.

I'll bet there's someone out there who can explain this to me.

I'm here in Columbus, Ohio for this weekend's Mid-Ohio Con, one of the better gatherings of its kind even if they do fly in guests like Len Wein and me. This morn, Len and I flew in on Southwest Airlines, which ain't a bad carrier except when you're flying to and from Las Vegas and on either flight or both, it seems to be required that they lose your luggage. But they were fine (though crowded) two weeks ago when the staff of Groo went to Kansas City and they were fine (though crowded) on the two flights that Len and I took this A.M. to get to where we are now. Here comes the "however"…

However, they have this policy of Open Seating. There are no assigned seats on Southwest Airlines. When you check in for your flight, you get a number on your Boarding Pass and you board in that order and pick where you want to sit. This sounds very small-D democratic, and I guess it is…but if a bunch of people are flying together, it makes it very difficult to sit together if you aren't in the first boarding group.

Single travellers start grabbing aisle and window seats. Couples travelling together take up two out of the three seats in a row. Even if you're near the start of the second boarding group — there are three total — by the time you get on the plane, it seems like nothing's open but middle seats. If you're flying with someone, you have to split up and go wedge in between strangers.

So the answer would seem to be to check in early and get a low number Boarding Pass, right? Once upon a time, when you made it to the take-off gate, a smiling Southwest employee would hand you a plastic number in sequence, and they'd collect them at the door as you boarded the plane. Nowadays, it's all computerized and you get your Boarding Pass from any number of sources, including but not limited to a Skycap or a ticket window attendant who print it out for you once you arrive at the airport. If you're travelling sans Samsonite, you can check in at a little kiosk and it will print out your Boarding Pass, in theory assigning you the lowest number that is not yet already assigned.

Better still, Southwest allows you to check in online 24 hours before your flight is scheduled to depart, and to print out your Boarding Pass at home. The first of our two flights (we had to change planes) was leaving this morning at 11:20 AM. So yesterday at 11:20 AM, I logged into the Southwest website, checked in for the two of us at the first possible opportunity…

…and got Boarding Pass #A35 on our first flight and #A40 on our second. (Len was, of course, #A36 and #A41.) Numerically, these were okay — Len and I got to sit together — but I was puzzled why we didn't get #A1 and #A2. Was this like sniping a bid at the last second on eBay? Had 34-39 people logged in a second before me once the clock hit 11:20?

I phoned Southwest and asked a nice lady who assured me it was all first-come, first-served. She said that on some flights, they hold back the first ten Boarding Passes for folks flying on special fares…but after that, it's in order of check-in. I found it hard to believe that 24 people had checked in in the eight seconds before I did. At LAX this morning, I asked the lady who had Boarding Pass #A34 how she'd gotten it and she said, "Oh, we just booked online a few days ago and when we checked in here at the airport, this is what they handed us." Either she somehow checked in more than 24 hours before the flight when they ordered their tickets or she checked in after me but got a lower number.

I'm not irate about this or complaining. I'm just curious. Is there some Southwest Airlines employee out there who can explain whatever it is I'm missing here? I will protect your identity if you'll come forward and lemme know. Or maybe some Southwest traveller knows the secret of the elusive Low Number Boarding Pass and will share it with us. Come on, people. Give.

Fred Kaplan itemizes how Sarah Palin doesn't know what she's talking about in the arena of foreign affairs.

And just as with the first debate, I thought the combatants were fairly even at the end and the polls are saying the Democrat walked away with it. There's something here I guess I don't understand and it may be as simple as this: Her sales pitches are worn out and not working. We've all heard seven thousand times that McCain is a "maverick." Saying it eight more times won't cause anyone to go, "Really? He's a maverick? Well then, I'd better vote for him." Insisting McCain knows how to "win wars" won't help, either. Even leaving aside the question of which wars he's won, that misses the point of Iraq. It's that a majority of Americans feel that the war has been too costly, both in terms of human lives and cash, and that what we might still achieve there just ain't worth it. The swingable votes out there just aren't buying the endless insistence that Obama will raise everyone's taxes and on other key issues, they've heard these arguments before and already rejected them.

For what it's worth, I watched a few video excerpts on the 'net later on…and Palin seemed less coherent in them than she did when I saw her unedited. So maybe she has a point about "the filter" — although the solution to that is just for her to go on a lot of live shows and do interviews. Which she won't do. It'll be safer to stick with the assertion that if and when she comes off like a boob, it's because that mean ol' biased media has sabotaged her with "gotcha" questions like "What should we do in Pakistan?"

I'm guessing we didn't have any of those overt "deer in the headlights" moments last night because she was well prepped not so much about facts but on Official McCain Talking Points. Watching the more embarrassing clips of her earlier interviews, I'm inclined to give her the benefit of every doubt. Maybe it's not that she didn't know the names of any Supreme Court decisions or newspapers she reads. Maybe it's more like she's been ordered to stay "on message" and never to utter anything that doesn't fit the McCain master plan…and she didn't know precisely what the campaign wanted her to say about those topics. In the debate, with the possible exception of the answer on civil unions, she at least knew McCain's position (and therefore, hers now) on all the predictable subjects that came up.

Anyway, give Governor Palin some credit for firing up her base and making them happy. And she may have achieved an important goal. She may not be the opening sketch on tomorrow evening's Saturday Night Live.

Missed this but just caught it in a replay. Palin said…

I do respect your years in the Senate but I think the American people are craving something new and different.

…and so they'll vote for a guy who's older than you?

I'm going to put any comments under this one item. So if you're checking in during the debate, keep refreshing for the latest…

6:05 — Well, they both dodged the first question. It was about the best and worst of Washington, not what your running mate has contributed.

6:10 — Sorry, Sarah. No one's going to buy that when McCain said "the fundamentals of our economy are strong," he meant, "U.S. workers are great!"

6:12 — If you were debating and I was your speechwriter, I could have anticipated these questions and written you an answer you could have memorized.

6:20 — Biden won the exchange about health plans…but Palin ain't doing badly. Gee, I wish they could each talk a little longer.

6:30 — Biden's repeating himself. Not a good tactic. He's also talking like John Moschitta, trying to get everything in. But Palin seems to think she can convince America that John McCain's the guy to regulate business. I can't imagine too many people buying that. And that line about not giving tax breaks to oil companies is going to be flagged in a lot of fact checks. They're proposing a tax break for all big companies, Exxon included.

6:35 — Half an hour in, I haven't heard anything that would sound silly coming out of the mouth of Tina Fey.

6:40 — I think Gwen Ifill's questions are predictable and dull. But no one can accuse her of favoring one candidate over the other.

6:45 — Biden could have done a much better job explaining how Obama didn't vote to not fund the troops.

6:47 — If you're playing a drinking game where you take a shot every time someone says the word "fundamental," you'll be dead by 7:10.

6:50 — Where was this Sarah Palin in the Katie Couric and Charlie Gibson interviews? I don't think she's doing Obama/Biden any damage but she's not giving the world a lot of cringe-worthy YouTube moments.

6:59 — Okay, Palin's little speech about how "change is coming" is the Palin that folks are laughing at. The reason her side is losing is because Obama is the change candidate. And no one believes we're not killing civilians in Iraq. She loses points for that one.

7:00 — Biden's too deep into some of the details…and he keeps saying, "I shouldn't say…" But really, it's impossible to discuss Pakistan and Afghanistan in 90-second chunks.

7:05 — Isn't the NATO commander named McKiernan? She keeps calling him McClellan.

7:08 — Palin's not going to convince America that John McCain has been consistent in his positions and Obama hasn't been. And what's this line I keep hearing about how McCain knows how to win wars? Which was the war that John McCain won?

7:10 — Biden's line about polling the folks at Home Depot about the economy was just as vapid as Palin's about asking people at a soccer game.

7:15 — I think Biden won the "what would you do as vice-president?" exchange handily. He'd actually participate and her answer was barely coherent.

7:21 — Is there a candidate in this election who hasn't made a speech that involved sitting around the kitchen table and discussing problems with your family?

7:28 — Palin's using a lot of the same lines of attack that have put her ticket into, at the moment, a losing position. That line about how she prefers to speak to the American people without the "filter" is silly, coming from someone who's been hiding out from the press. There are plenty of media venues that would gladly interview you on live TV, governor.

7:32 — Biden's closing statement wasn't bad. I get the feeling a lot of America is disappointed that no one's pants fell down. I'd rate it as close to a draw…but I thought that last time and Obama did about as well as anyone ever could. I don't think Palin's going to fare well in the fact checks but she might do well in polling, with viewers saying that she wasn't the bimbo they were expecting.

7:36 — Poor Gwen Ifill. Everyone's up on stage chatting and being friendly…and because of her broken ankle, she's still sitting down in the moderator chair, all alone. To the extent that her job was to knock these folks off their scripts and get them to say something new, I don't think Ifill did very well. But maybe she didn't think that was her job.

7:38 — Ah, someone noticed and now everyone's going down to say hello to Ifill. That's nice. I hope someone thanks her for the softballs.

7:44 — Palin did well…not as well as Pat Buchanan's now trying to convince people on MSNBC but she did a good job. The problem was that she was selling all the same talking points that America has already heard about McCain and which haven't sold very well to date. I don't think the voters who are leaning Obama are now going to go, "Oh, McCain is the candidate of change!" People who want the war to end are not going to decide McCain is the guy to make that happen. She said a few rambling, baffling things but overall, her problem is that people aren't buying what she's selling.

Then again, I called the last one wrong. So don't go by me.

As I mentioned, last Sunday I was at the West Hollywood Book Fair. There, the Internet talk show, Comics on Comics, recorded an episode/podcast with a panel of fun folks, one of them me, talking about comics. It runs about 43 minutes and you can watch it at this website. I talk about Jack Kirby for a while and about some of the more obscure crannies of my career.