If you go to shows in Manhattan, this might be a handy page to bookmark. It's the seating charts for all the theaters in the Broadway area.

The magazine known as MAD started at about the same time I did.  Maybe that's why I've always had a tremendous fondness for it.  I have a complete collection in the next room and it's one of the last things I would ever part with.

Its founding editor in 1952 was Harvey Kurtzman and he departed in 1956, replaced by Al Feldstein who ran things there until 1984.  For most of the time, he was aided by a clever gent named Nick Meglin.  As I became a world-class expert on the magazine, I came to realize that a lot of the sense of humor I loved in MAD during the Feldstein years was Nick Meglin's sense of humor.

When Feldstein retired, publisher William M. Gaines split the editor job between Meglin and assistant editor John Ficarra.  Meglin retired in 2004 and Ficarra has had the position all to himself since then.  Earlier this year, it was announced that after 65 years, MAD would no longer be edited out of an office in New York.  It would move, as the rest of DC Comics has, to Burbank, California, where it would have a new editorial staff headed by Bill Morrison.  I know (or knew) all these men and respect every one of them.

Morrison and his crew are assembling their first issue, which will be #551.  It will feature many of the longtime MAD contributors (Sergio Aragonés, Al Jaffee, Dick DeBartolo, et al) and many new folks.  Meanwhile in Manhattan, Ficarra and his staff are about to send #550 off to press, which they are doing this week even as they clean out their offices.  There's a certain sadness there but they've had a good run with much to be proud of.

The writing especially has been very sharp the last decade or so, hindered mainly by a basic reality of production.  Humor in this country has grown more topical and immediate in the Internet Age.  When something happens in the news at Noon, we can start reading jokes about it on Twitter well before 12:15 and we can see more that night on Colbert, Meyers, Fallon, The Daily Show, etc.  MAD can post something on its website rapidly (and does) but the actual magazine takes weeks to print and distribute.  Thus, the topical humor in it just ain't that topical.

That's hurt sales as has the simple deterioration of the magazine marketplace.  I wonder if there's a single periodical that's been around 20+ years that's selling anything close to what it did back then.  Playboy, TV Guide, Newsweek…they're all way, way down from their old circulation figures and there are fewer and fewer newsracks around.

One of the few upticks in sales came when they began targeting Donald J. Trump, who is becoming as much their cover boy as Alfred E. Neuman.  Just as Trump-bashing upped the tune-in for late night TV and Stephen Colbert especially, ridiculing Donald has helped MAD tremendously.

But that of course is a short-term boost.  I don't know what the new masters of MAD have in mind for it except surely it involves finding ways to exploit its name and style of humor in multimedia ways.  I love it as a magazine but I don't see that as a bad thing at all.  I also know Bill Morrison well.  He's a bright, talented guy with a great track record for working with others, and a deep understanding and knowledge of the institution's heritage.

I'm just sorry to see Ficarra and his Usual Gang of Idiots — Sam Viviano, Ryan Flanders, Joe Raiola, Patty Dwyer, Charlie Kadau, Dave Croatto, Jacob Lambert and all the rest — outside the MAD loop. I like John tremendously but I told him long ago that MAD is precious to me in many ways. If I ever thought he was not doing maintaining its high standards, I would rip him a new one on this blog and elsewhere, treating him even worse than he treats Trump. I am so glad that was never necessary. Kurtzman, Feldstein, Meglin and Ficarra all kept MAD the best humor magazine that's ever existed and I'm sure Bill Morrison will, too.

Because if he doesn't, he's in a lot of trouble.

In the words of Donald Trump, let's go to the links…

• USA Today says Trump is "not fit to clean the toilets in the Barack Obama Presidential Library or to shine the shoes of George W. Bush."
• Matt Yglesias has a takeaway from the election last night: "The GOP agenda is toxically unpopular." He also notes that "Trump's net approval rating is lower today than it was for any previous president on record at this point in his term, and, remarkably, that's been true for every day of his presidency."
• But Ezra Klein feels the way I do; that it's frightening how close Moore came to becoming a Senator and that so many Americans will disbelieve or ignore evidence if their gut tells them to vote for a guy.
• Ron Faucheux has seven lessons that can be learned from last night. I agree with all seven.
• Nate Silver thinks what happened last night is not a fluke. And he draws some interesting comparisons between Democrat Doug Jones grabbing Jeff Sessions' Senate seat in Alabama and when Republican Scott Brown won Ted Kennedy's Senate seat in Massachusetts.
• Jonathan Chait believes the Mueller investigation is in serious danger.
• But Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux believes that even if Trump fires Meuller, it will not stop the investigation. We link, you decide.

If Roy Moore had triumphed last night, he'd be all over the place today saying it was God's will, God had mandated his win, God wanted his agenda to succeed. Apparently, the opposite is not true.

A lot of Democrats are turning cartwheels tonight over the victory Doug Jones scored over Roy Moore for the Senate seat for Alabama. And it's true Democrats have hit on a strategy for winning elections but, alas, it hinges on Republicans nominating men with perverse sexual histories that are exposed, and then the Republican has to give lame, contradictory accounts of what really happened. I don't know how often they can count on that happening.

• Roy Moore just said, "I would have won if they'd lowered the voting age to twelve!" #FAKENEWS

I often rave here about the show my buddy Frank Ferrante does. I loved it from the moment I first saw this happen: Frank comes out on stage as himself and talks about the impact that Groucho Marx had on his life. As he's talking, he sits down at a little make-up table and begins applying grease paint to his face and rearranging his hair…and at some point, there comes a moment when the Italian kid completely disappears and there in his place is Julius "Groucho" Marx. For the next 90 minutes or so, there's a most reasonable facsimile of the guy singing, telling stories and bantering with the audience.

At the moment, Frank is doing his show at the Cincinnati Playhouse in the Park, which of course is in Ohio. Here's how he makes that amazing transformation…

Today is the special election in Alabama between Roy Moore and Doug Jones for the U.S. Senate seat and the polling is all over the place. They all pretty much cancel each other out and we're left guessing how the vote will go. You can probably guess what I'm hoping…and it isn't even because of the charges of pedophilia against Moore. I thought he was a bad man before any of that came out.

In other news: Politifact has chosen as its Lie of the Year — and it had to beat out a lot of worthy contenders — Donald Trump's oft-repeated insistence that "This Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story." The fact-checking site is dubious that Russian meddling gave Trump his victory but says there is no doubt that there the meddling occurred and Donald is fibbing to argue it didn't.

I like most of the fact-checking websites even when they tell me something I wish wasn't so. A few of them seem to have trouble differentiating between a deliberate lie and an understandable or innocent mistake but I have little problem with their assessments of what's true or false. And one might note that a lot of the false statements have the same birthing process. Someone was thinking, "Gee, what will get people to click on a link of mine?" If that's your goal, you can tell people you've got the secret to making millions, entrancing the opposite sex or penis enlargement. Or you can tell them that there's proof that Hillary's going to prison or Trump is resigning. There's a lot of wish-fulfillment going on.

It's particularly bad today because a claim that Roy Moore's accusers have all been exposed as liars doesn't have to stand any test of time. It just has to be believed while folks in Alabama are going in and casting their votes.

There's a saying that everyone is entitled to their opinion but not to their own facts. I think that's changing. I think a lot of people feel they're entitled to their own facts and we might as well all get on board. If tonight, Moore wins with 55% and Jones gets 45%, I think we should just declare that 45% is higher than 55% and that Jones won. Because you know that if Jones does win, a lot of Moore supporters are going to insist that he couldn't possibly have gotten more votes so it had to be rigged.

Bill Jodele sent me the question I thought was most worthy of being the 25,000th post on this blog. For it, he receives a nice gift and the answer that follows. But first, here's what he asked me…

So how does one get to 25,000 posts on one's blog?

Well, it helps if you love to write and I really do. I have no particular opinion on whether I do it well. Years ago, I developed the belief that it's harmful to a writer to have a high estimation of his or her own ability. It's usually harmful to the work and if you go around saying it, it can be harmful to your employment. Most people who hire writers are of the opinion that if someone tells you how great they are, it's because they figure you won't come to that conclusion if you read their work.

In my case, I only know these two things: I enjoy it and there's a very long list of things I'm worse at. If I couldn't support myself writing, I'd probably spend a large part of every week writing just for myself. I'd put in my nine-to-five at Subway making six-inch meatball subs on Italian bread, then I'd go home and write all night.

July of 2019 will mark a half-century of me being a professional writer and unless things take a drastic plunge between now and then, I will log fifty years of never having once thought, "Maybe I should do something else with my life." That is not necessarily a brag. I know people who'd say it shows a lack of courage or a lack of sufficiently-high dreaming…but in this world, we do what works for us and that's what works for me.

What I like about blogging is (a) it's writing and (b) it's writing for me. Some wise person will someday say, "An artist is never so free as when he draws for his own enjoyment." Perhaps one already has. Either way, it's fun to spend some of my time at this keyboard putting down whatever's on my mind, unfettered by concerns that some editor won't like this or some producer doesn't want that.

I have friends who started weblogs because they thought it would help them professionally. Someone, they figured, would read their blogs and say, "Hey, I wanna get that guy for this high-paying job I have." If my experiences are typical, that does not happen often and the offers that do materialize are usually to write for the same rate the blog pays — i.e., nothing.

(Full Disclosure: My Amazon links have lately been netting me somewhere between $300 and $700 a month, though they've occasionally sparked much higher. If that sounds like a huge windfall to you, subtract the $2500 a year I spend on hosting, estimate the number of hours I put in and then reconsider. Fortunately, I have been able to do almost all the design and tech work myself, and I have friends like Josh Jones and Glenn Hauman who pitch in when a software problem is above my non-existent pay grade, as so many are.)

It does bring me work because people who see my writing in more professional venues have an easy way to contact me but that's not why I do it. I think part of my longevity at this is that I've never expected it to lead to anything.

If you start blogging because you think it's going to bolster your career, you can get real disappointed quickly and lose interest. Over the years, a few writer-acquaintances started blogs and immediately wrote to ask me to plug them and link to them. I often wrote back, "I'll link to you after you get your tenth post up" and the link never happened because they never made it that far.

Here is a bit of advice for anyone who's thinking of starting a blog. Don't start by trying to figure out software and hosting and web design. Start by verifying that you can keep the thing filled because very few people will follow a blog that goes weeks without a new entry. See if you can write twelve posts of a non-time-sensitive nature in one month, three a week. That would be twelve posts of more than a few sentences…twelve posts with which you're satisfied. If you can't do that, don't waste your time setting up a blog.

If you can, then get the thing up and running — and don't be surprised if it feels like you have a new puppy in the house. It has to be fed on a regular basis and every so often, it will make a mess on your carpet…in the case of the blog, by crashing. This blog is hosted by an expensive but utterly reliable hosting company. Before I went to them, it cost me a lot less in money but a lot more in time and tsuris.

Then once it's up and running, try to see how long you can manage to get new content up there every few days before you have to use one of those twelve warm-up posts you did. As long as possible, save them for those inevitable moments when you can't spare ten minutes to blog but feel the need/responsibility to post something.

What should you post? Well, the great thing about blogging — and really, really make sure you appreciate this — is that it's wholly up to you. You will not experience a freedom like that in many other portions of your life. I would politely suggest though that only a small percentage be devoted to your career and general self-promotion. I am assuming here you want some sort of readership and most people won't read a blog that just says, "Here's what I have coming out that you can buy next week."

I am pleased and feel like I'm doing it right when one of my publishers e-mails me to ask, "How come you haven't written on your page about that new book you did for us?" People will tolerate commercials but they expect a fair amount of program between them.

And then enjoy blogging for the sake of blogging. It's hard work at times but so are a lot of things that are worth doing. The benefits? You'll hear from some friends you haven't heard from in some time. You'll make new friends. No matter how innocuous your posts are, you'll hear from someone who thinks you're a friggin', uninformed idiot. You'll get a lot of requests to promote other folks' projects. I enjoy a large, smart readership so I have only to ask a question and I get dozens of answers, many of them even correct.

But none of this will happen if you don't enjoy writing. I do and I've never understood people who do it voluntarily but constantly complain how much work it is. There's a quote attributed to various folks but mostly Dorothy Parker: "I hate writing but I love having written." To me, that's like saying, "I hate hitting myself over the head with a ball-peen hammer but I love how it feels when I stop."

If that's how you feel about writing, don't blog. I mean, think about it. There must be something else you can do to not make any money.

A touring company of Hamilton is up at the Pantages in Hollywood through the end of the year and I managed to score two great seats for last night for $200 each. So now first, you ask yourself if the show could be worth $400 plus the $20 I paid to park. Then you note that online "ticket resellers" (nicer term than "scalpers") are asking $700 apiece for seats in that area and you have to ask if the show could be worth foregoing a possible $1000 profit.

It's a switch on the old Groucho and Chico Marx exchange — "How much do you get for playing? How much do you get for not playing?" In this case, it's how much do you get for not going to see Hamilton?

Amber and I went and felt it was very much worth the $400. I don't know about the $1000 but we both thought it was a terrific show, well worth the accolades and fuss. I expect to enjoy it even more when I have time to play the cast album, something I usually avoid doing until I've seen a show for the first time. There were plenty of lyrics I missed and would like to hear.

I don't think I liked any one song or one aspect of the show more than another. Its cohesive properties were impressive — the way the narrative unfolded, weaving in and out of various styles and levels of seriousness.

Playing Alexander Hamilton was a gent named Michael Luwoye who I gather played the part on Broadway for a while. It's hard to imagine anyone doing more with the role but that was true of most members of the cast. A gent who was walking out before us was telling his companions he'd seen the original cast in New York and what we got out here was every bit as good. I can believe that.

Not much more to add except to say that in the past when I've gone to see the big smash hit that everyone was raving about, I've been disappointed. It was nice to not be disappointed in the least this time.

And now you may be wondering what's going to be in Post #25,000. Well, as they say in Hamilton, just you wait. Just you wait.

• Just paid two Hamiltons to park for "Hamilton."

I'm getting a lot of e-mail from people — some of them rude to the extreme — who want to argue that the trademark decision in the Comic-Con case is legally unsound. As a matter of following the law, I don't think I know enough to have an opinion on that.

They're also concerned that it will harm or even destroy other conventions around the country. That, I don't believe. There are many, many successful conventions of this variety that do not feel they need to use the term "Comic Con" in their names. I mentioned ones like Heroes Con and DragonCon and there are also others like Wizard World New Orleans, Wizard World St. Louis, Wizard World Cleveland, Wizard World Portland, Wizard World Philadelphia, Wizard World Des Moines, Wizard World Columbus, Wizard World Boise, Wizard World Chicago, Wizard World Madison, Wizard World Oklahoma City…

Yes, "Comic Con" is a handy descriptor or sub-title but, come on. Companies seem to be able to sell flavored gelatin desserts without calling them "Jell-O." Hundreds of firms manufacture facial tissue without calling their product "Kleenex." Donald Trump managed to get elected without any right whatsoever to describe himself as a "human being."

Closer to home, DC and Marvel still hold a joint trademark on "superhero." I'm not saying that's right or legal or fair or anything of that sort. I just don't think it's fatal to others who want to put out comic books about people who wear capes, fly around and fight crime.

Oh, and I think I need to clarify something: I am not an employee — in any sense of the word — of Comic-Con International. I also was in no way a founder of it, despite what reporters (and hosts of podcasts I appear on) keep insisting. I was at best an early supporter of it and I have been a constant attendee and frequent guest. I think it's a magnificent institution and since it sells out each year just as soon as it can possibly sell out, there's at least a chance that I'm not be the only person on this planet who feels that way.

If the court in this one decision was as egregiously wrong as some are telling me, that just increases the likelihood that another court will overturn it on appeal. I just don't think that until that happens — or if it doesn't happen — it's going to destroy every other convention that uses the term. And, really: Don't we have more important, actually life-threatening things in this world today to rant about?

---

Well, it looks like we're not going to hit 25,000 today here. I have a long "to do" list so there might only be one or two more here before Midnight. This evening, I'm taking Amber to see a play about the guy on the ten-dollar bill. I haven't heard much about it but it was written by the kid some of us first saw back in this somewhat amateurish video back in 2010 so I'm a little skeptical. I hope it doesn't suck. I had to sell my mother's old home to get tickets.

The talented folks from Voctave reach for that elusive Impossible Dream…

On Friday, I reported that the operators of Comic-Con International in San Diego had won a trademark suit against the operators of the Salt Lake City Comic Con. I don't know enough about the law or what was argued in court to say if this was a just verdict or not but I'm getting a lot of e-mail from folks who think it was wrong because the Big Guy beat the Little Guy. I'll admit that I am sometimes suspicious of lawsuits that are won by the side with the most money but they're not always wrong and the Salt Lake City event ain't that little a Little Guy.

I also don't see why anyone is fearful of the impact of this verdict. Can't the Boise Comic Con (if there is such a gathering) rename itself the Boise Comic Fest or the Boise Media Con and proceed without much of a speed bump? Are a lot of people going to go, "It's a Comic Fest? Oh, no! I only go to Comic Cons"? There are plenty of successful enterprises around the country that could call themselves "Comic Cons" and don't: Heroes Con, DragonCon, WonderCon, Chicago Comic and Entertainment Expo, Megacon, etc. Still, a lot of folks seem worried that the group in San Diego now wields some undeserved power to control the industry and wipe out its competitors. I don't see how anything is going to change except one or two words in some conventions' names.

I also don't get these negative feelings some people seem to have about the Comic-Con in San Diego. If you don't like crowds, I get that but you might as well bad-mouth Disneyland or the Super Bowl and see how much that changes anything. Understand that crowded places are crowded because they please so many and that you don't have to go. I do get that there are those who are angry they can't secure badges for Comic-Con but I'm afraid that's the nature of the beast. The convention center can only hold so many people and if ten times that number want to go, a lot of people are simply going to be turned away.

I have dealt with Comic-Con since its inception. In 2019, I expect to attend my fiftieth (!!!) installment of this institution — one of maybe a half-dozen people who can say they've been to every one of them.

(Brief interruption to say something out of what Daffy Duck used to call, sheer honesty:) Before Comic-Con started under another name, its organizers had a one-day mini-con as a kind of warm-up exercise. I didn't go to that. Also, there was a period when my interest in Comic-Con faltered a bit and I began skipping the first day or the last day. I no longer do that but my pal Scott Shaw!, who had to miss one year for medical reasons, has been to more total days of Comic-Con than I have.)

Anyway, I know Comic-Con and I know the people behind it. They're great, hard-working men and women who work for a non-profit organization. I put that in italics because a lot of the convention's detractors either don't know that or hear it and don't seem to know what that term means. It means the people who run the con do not pocket large amounts of cash. Almost all of the other comic conventions — the good ones and the bad ones — are run for profit. There's nothing wrong with that — I like a lot of the conventions that aren't non-profit — but don't confuse which are which.

A month or three ago, I got a call from an agent who books celebrities into conventions — celebs who will sign autographs or pose for selfies for large fees. He told me he had recently booked a Superstar Client into one con for a $50,000 guarantee, meaning that said Superstar was guaranteed first-class transportation, a luxury suite, food and beverage expenses and a take-home haul of at least $50,000 for the weekend. The agent wanted me to tell him who to contact about Comic-Con International because, as he put it, "They have more than twice the attendance of our last con so I figure I can hit them up for $100,000 at least!"

I told him he would be wasting a phone call. "San Diego doesn't do that."

He thought either I was nuts or they were…or maybe both. He kept explaining they con would get to advertise his client's appearance and that would bring swarms of people to their doors. "What convention wouldn't kill for that?" he asked.

I replied, "A convention that completely sells out each year months in advance without advertising any of its guests. In fact, Comic-Con usually sells out in less than two hours. They don't have any place to put your swarms." (Early reports peg this year's sell-out, which occurred yesterday, at 64 minutes. A new world's record!)

I also explained to him that very few celebrities at Comic-Con make megabucks signing autographs there. There are too many other things competing for fans' dollars, including some pretty famous people who sign without charging to promote their books or TV shows or movies. (Some of them, of course, are paid by publishers or studios to be there and sign. The point is that if the casts of The Walking Dead and Game of Thrones are signing for free across the aisle from you, folks might be a little less eager to fork over $100 for your signature.)

The agent did not like any of this and I don't know if he even contacted Comic-Con. Conventions, by the way, often get a cut of what the celebrity autographers take in…and San Diego still doesn't do that.

Getting back to the battle royale over the name "Comic-Con," I don't know who is right in the decision insofar as the law is concerned. Maybe it will get appealed and reversed. But I have a hard time seeing the damage to the enterprises that will now have to trade in part of their name for another word that conveys the same idea. If a lot of people were thinking that the Hell Comic Con in Hell, Michigan (that's a real city) is a local outpost of the famous Comic-Con International in San Diego, maybe it's a good thing to clear up that CONfusion.

Part 1 of this series can be read here.

How do you write a comic book? I've been doing that since 1968 and getting my work published since 1970. It is important to make the point that I've worked dozens of different ways, outputting scripts in many different formats and breaking down the work in different manners. People keep writing me and asking, "What does a comic book script look like?" and maybe I'll get to that in this series. But if I have the time, I explain to them that there are many approaches and the scripts like I wrote for Bugs Bunny looked nothing like the scripts I wrote for Blackhawk.

I try to approach every new assignment with the flexibility to change modus operandi to fit the needs of the material and my collaborators. It can vary depending on the strengths or weaknesses of those collaborators and/or because of how well I know them. If I write something for Sergio Aragonés, who is a master of visual humor, I don't have to explain a visual joke to him. I also have to expect that he may vastly improve it, plus there's the fact that he and I talk most every day.

I have also written scripts that were drawn by artists I've never met or spoken with…or even, when I wrote the script, artists who were unselected.  I wrote one last week with no idea who'll end up drawing it.  Whatever it is I have to convey to the artist needs to be in the script and I can't presume that they'll understand what I have in mind if I shorthand something.

No matter what the format, writing a comic pretty much breaks down into four stages.  These are my definitions and terms…

• The Springboard. What is this particular story about? This would be a one or two line summary, for instance: "The Joker and The Penguin team up to kill Batman." Or "A new villain named Destructo has titanium hands with which he plans to crush The Hulk." Or "Scooby Doo and the gang run into a ghost cocker spaniel who's scaring everyone out of the big Dog Show."
• The Plot. This is a description — and it may be written, may be verbal — that expands upon The Springboard and has a beginning, middle and end. Taking the first Springboard above, it works out how The Joker and The Penguin get together and plan to kill Batman, how Batman in the end foils their plan and all the things that happen that get us from the first part of the story to the ending.
• The Breakdown. What happens in Panel 1? What happens in Panel 2? What happens in Panel 3? What happens in Panel 4? And so on. This stage would also include more specific details on the events described in The Plot. For instance, The Plot might say "Catwoman breaks out of prison and gets to the bank before The Joker and The Penguin." Whoever does The Breakdown may have to figure out how she breaks out and how she gets there before them. (And please understand: The Breakdown is not the same thing as the kind of layout an artist might do to figure out what goes where. This is discussion is not about the drawing. The Breakdown is the decision of how many panels go on a page and what happens in each one.)
• The Copy. This is the composition of the words that go in the captions and word balloons, and it would also include the sound effects.

No matter what form is employed, you need these four elements to write a comic book. Somebody has to do them even if they aren't all done by the credited writer.

When I started out, I was writing mostly funny animal comics and I did most of them on spec, meaning I'd write the script and an editor would read it, then decide if he or she wanted to buy it.  Often, it was not possible to get The Springboard approved before I did all the other things…so I'd write a whole script — all four elements — and then the editor would say, "Oh, we just did a story just like that!" or "I just didn't like the basic premise."

If the script was rejected, I usually could not sell it elsewhere. I might cannibalize it and use elements of it in other work but I did not get paid for the rejected script. This is obviously not a good system for the writer and it doesn't work for the editor, either. Sometimes though, you have to work that way, especially when you're new.

A great many arguments have erupted because of the confusion between The Springboard and The Plot.  An awful lot of people supply The Springboard but nothing more and then say, "I plotted that issue!" In my world, I would not award a plot credit for that. For ceremonial reasons, I might say "Idea by Joe Blow," especially if the guy who had the idea was actually named Joe Blow.

In the next installment of this series, whenever I get around to it, I will discuss who did what on some of the best comics of the past and where I think the credits were right or wrong or somewhat misleading.

I don't think I've ever mentioned it here but for a while now, the operators of Comic-Con International (that thing in San Diego) have been locked in a war with the folks who put on the Salt Lake City Comic Con. The issue? Is "Comic-Con," with or without the hyphen, a generic term which no one can own and anyone can use? Or is it a valid trademark for the San Diego folks? Today, a San Diego jury decided the latter. The name, they said, belongs to the non-profit outfit that runs Comic-Con International.

Their victory was not total. They had sought $12 million in damages but were awarded only $20,000. The Salt Lake City group says it will appeal but until they do — assuming they do and if they prevail — a lot of events around the country are going to be changing their names, probably to "Con" plus some adjective. You can read more about the dispute here.