I said that the Fish Grill chain in Los Angeles serves clam chowder. What was I thinking? It's a Kosher chain. They don't have shellfish on the premises. What they have is a great fish chowder that actually reminds one of clam chowder. Thanks to Geoff Klein for catching my blunder.

Also, I said in the previous posting that I was bad at plugging my work here. Kurt Busiek informs me that I'm even worse than I thought I was. He writes, "I don't think you mentioned your participation in the finale of Steve Gerber's Dr. Fate story, either." He's right. When our pal Steve Gerber passed away, he'd written (or helped write) seven parts of an eight-part story that was running in DC's book, Countdown to Mystery.

Rather than have one writer write The Ending to Steve's story — which almost certainly would not have finished it off the way Steve would have — editor Joey Cavalieri asked four of us (me, Gail Simone, Mark Waid and Adam Beechen) to each write An Ending for that issue, thereby quadrupling the chance that there'd be something in there close to what Gerber would have written. This issue came out a few months ago and I was proud to be included, saddened that it had to be done.

I'm real bad at plugging stuff I have coming out. It's been eons since I've mentioned Will Eisner's The Spirit, which comes out every month, or our upcoming "Groo Meets Conan" series…and I don't think I've made any reference at all to an upcoming Indiana Jones book I'm writing for Dark Horse. This is because there are more important things in this world to write about…like alarm clocks that wake you up to the smell of bacon.

But I should mention this: Years ago, a talented gent named Will Meugniot conspired with me and we came up with a super-hero series called The DNAgents (which way too many people referred to as "The DNA Agents") and it lasted a few years and was enormous fun, at least for us, while it lasted. Will left at some point and I continued it with others…and the Evanier/Meugniot issues (including a sequence or two drawn by Dan Spiegle) are about to be reissued in a fancy paperback with new color covers and mostly-old black-and-white interiors. DNAgents: The Industrial Strength Edition comes out the middle of October from Image. It's 452 pages, some of which contain special features by Will and a new foreword by me, for a paltry $24.99. Will is personally supervising the production of it so it oughta look real good.

And that's about all I have to say about it except that if there's sufficient reaction (i.e., sales), I assume they'll reprint the other issues, as well as some of the spin-off books we did like Crossfire. You now know just about as much as I do about this. The only difference is I don't have to pay for my copy and you do. You can advance order a copy from Amazon by clicking this here link. It's only sixteen and a half bucks from them…such a deal.

And at the same time, I should say I'm sick of politics that attempts to define someone by what they eat or drink. The fact that someone eats arugula or pork rinds…that they sip lattes or chug-a-lug beer…that they like their Philly Cheese Steaks with the "wrong" kind of cheese or don't know the proper slang when ordering…

All of that is nonsense. If you're trying to get me to not vote for someone because of that kind of stuff, it must be because you can't find anything really wrong with what he might do in office. Either that or you think I'm so stupid that his lunch matters to me more than his plans for Iraq.

An alarm clock that wakes you up with the smell of freshly-cooked bacon.

Maybe we do need the government to step in and regulate what we eat.

Beth Slick (thank you, Beth) found for me the L.A. City Council's definition of fast food. The whole bill can be read as a PDF file at this link but the definition about which I was wondering turns out to be as follows…

…any establishment which dispenses food for consumption, on or off the premises, and which has the following characteristics: a limited menu, items prepared in advance or prepared or heated quickly, no table orders, and food served in disposable wrapping or containers.

Okay, first point: As far as I can tell, there are no more specific definitions in the bill. Nothing says how many menu items a place has to have to not be "limited" or even how they count. (If a place serves hamburgers, cheeseburgers, double hamburgers and double cheeseburgers, is that one item or two or four?) How fast does something have to be prepared or heated to constitute "fast food?"

There are also easy loopholes. A Wendy's could send one kid out to occasionally take an order at one table and it would no longer be a "fast food" establishment by these rules.

And there are places that fit these rules but are obviously part of the solution to the alleged problem. For instance, in L.A. we have a small chain called Fish Grill. They have fewer menu items than an Arby's, some of their offerings (like the clam chowder) are prepared in advance, they have no table orders and everything comes on paper plates. What do they serve? Grilled fresh fish, salads, fish tacos…healthier fare. Come to think of it, a place that just serves salads — they're prepared quickly — might fall right into the same classification as a KFC.

So just what are we trying to stop here? Restaurants that don't serve a wide selection? Restaurants that don't take a long time to prepare each meal? Restaurants that don't employ servers or use real plates? Is any of that a danger to anyone?

The premise of this bill is that the public health is suffering because of…well, here. I'll quote it from the bill:

…the linkage between fast food, poor nutrition and serious public health issues, such as obesity, hypertension and heart disease. In low-income communities, such as South Los Angeles, these issues are exacerbated by the lack of access to healthier alternatives.

That's the supposed wrong they're trying to right, not that food gets served in disposable containers. I could almost buy the argument that there's a public interest in making sure that "healthier alternatives" have a chance of establishing themselves amidst the flurry of Taco Bells out there. But at least part of the reason we don't have such places is that there's no evidence of any real demand for them…and legislation and a moratorium on opening new Yoshinoya Beef Bowls is not going to create that demand.

And if you could make it possible for folks in this area to eat healthier…well, what's wrong if that healthier food comes on paper plates, is prepared quickly and so forth? People go to McDonald's at least in part for the convenience. If someone want to replicate that convenience but offer organic goodies, why stop them? That might be the best way to create a marketplace for those "healthier alternatives." You market them exactly the same way as the Triple Whopper with Cheese and a King-sized order of fries (1850 calories, 1060 of them from fat).

I'm not sure the government has a lot of business trying to limit the sale of legal food. But to the extent they do, they oughta be going after the unhealthy menu items…not targeting some silly definition of a "fast food restaurant." Fast isn't the problem.

A nice article on Bunny Hoest, who took over managing the comic strip, The Lockhorns, when its creator (her husband) passed away. Thanks to James H. Burns for the link.

Dick Cavett reminisces about his relationship with Johnny Carson.

Lots of folks seem to be suggesting (or even predicting) that the Comic-Con International should/will move out of San Diego in the next few years. I don't think it should…and barring some lunkheaded moves by the convention center operators and city, I don't think it will, if only for lack of better alternatives. If the con's going to stay anywhere near Hollywood, which is one of its main appeals, the only options are Los Angeles, Anaheim and Las Vegas. No successful conventions of this kind have ever been staged in any of those locales and I can't see any of them as being preferable.

The Los Angeles Convention Center is a dreadful, sprawling place with nightmarish traffic nearby. There's already a huge sports arena and a separate concert hall within three blocks and a huge shopping center is soon to break ground. Even now, there's nowhere near enough parking. During any sort of major con, the center's parking structures fill to overflowing, and the commercial lots charge a fortune. (Remind me to tell you a story about that.) That would matter a lot because there are only a few hotels within walking distance of the convention center so outta-towners would be scattered all over L.A. — and we all know how wonderful mass transit is in this city.

Anaheim? Go take a look at what the hotels are able to charge now and how few rooms they have available. In San Diego, we aren't competing with families going to Disneyland…and the traffic/parking situation isn't much better than it is in L.A. It's been a while since I've been to Anaheim's convention center but the last time I was there, it looked like a dandy place to store manure for the rest of the country. In any case, it's not much bigger than what we have now in San Diego.

Which leaves Las Vegas. On July 24, the opening day of this year's Comic-Con International, it was 70° in San Diego. In Vegas, it was 107°. That's about the norm and it may be reason enough to scratch Sin City from consideration.

The convention centers in Vegas (there are several) are bigger but hotel rooms would be just as expensive and hard to come by. The Comic-Con in San Diego currently attracts about 125,000 people per year. Since the idea of moving it to Vegas would be to allow for more, figure (conservatively) it might bring in 150,000. That would make it about the same size as the annual Consumer Electronics Show in Vegas. Anyone who's ever tried to book a room during CES can tell you that it's very hard to secure lodging — the big gamblers, after all, take precedence — and that you must usually pay five or more times the usual going prices for rooms.

I also think Vegas has the wrong vibe for the Comic-Con. It's not a kid-friendly town and there are too many other things to spend your time/bucks on. If I were a dealer, I wouldn't want the slot machines and Cirque du Soleil competing with me for the attendees' money. Everything about Vegas is configured to get you to the slots and to drain your wallet within the confines of your hotel.

One of the reasons the con works so well in San Diego is that we take over the city. There are other things to do, of course — plenty of them. But the Comic-Con dominates everything and therefore has great clout with the hotels and convention facilities. That wouldn't happen in L.A., Anaheim or Vegas. We'd just be another convention to them, nowhere near as important as we are to San Diego.

So I think Comic-Con oughta stay put. I'm told that the lodging situation will get better over the next few years as several new hotels open and several of the existing ones make more of their rooms available at convention rates. Capping attendance as the Comic-Con has done may inconvenience some…but it's not like the con really needs more attendees. One thing I don't think some people get is that moving to a larger venue probably wouldn't mean uncluttered aisles and plenty of cheap, available hotel rooms. To support a bigger hall would necessitate more people, more dealers, etc. Moving might just lead to more of the same kind of density. For some, the suggestion of moving the con comes down to, "It's too big! Let's move it somewhere it can get bigger!"

Also, relocating a major convention like this is not as simple as you choosing to stay at a Holiday Inn next month instead of a Motel 6. There's complicated math involved in these deals, and it involves things like what other conventions might want the facilities at the same time, how many hotel rooms the attendees might occupy, how much additional equipment must be brought in, etc. A few years ago, a member of the S.D. convention committee told me that if the con ever had to move to L.A., it might be necessary to double the price of admission and dealer tables there. Why? Because the L.A. Convention Center was just plain more expensive and because (he presumed) a much higher percentage of attendees would be commuting to the con from home and therefore not renting rooms at hotels that served the convention center. In most cities, the financial end of bringing in a convention is inextricably intertwined with the commerce of local merchants. It's a maze of subsidies and guarantees and how much money convention-goers spend locally…and they've managed to make it all work in San Diego. You can't just say, "Oh, let's do it in Vegas next year" and expect to get comparable terms.

All that said, it doesn't bother me that there are these rumors of the con moving. The folks who run it need at least a little leverage in order to negotiate the best terms possible with the S.D. Convention Bureau or whoever they make their deals with. The city has promised an expansion of the convention center and, I'm sure, many other things…and the option of going elsewhere may be necessary to make some of those plans happen, or at least happen soon. I just hope they never have to make good on their threats because I really think San Diego is the place for this one, now and forever.

(P.S. For another argument on the topic, check out this piece but don't believe everything you read. The author touts the Star Trek Experience at the Vegas Hilton and the city monorail as a reason to go to that town. The Star Trek Experience closes September 1…and the monorail, which is losing money like a tourist who splits tens at Blackjack, may not be around for very long, either. They also say "The best part about the LVCC [Las Vegas Convention Center] is it is connected to the Hilton hotel, that alone can accommodate 100,000 people." Uh, the Vegas Hilton has 3,175 rooms, only a percentage of which are available to any convention. I also don't think there's much chance of arranging free hotel shuttles to and from the airport in Los Angeles. At least, that doesn't happen with larger conventions in this city. But many of the other points made strike me as valid.)