Since David Fury recommended it a couple of years ago I finally dragged myself onto Facebook and now often post (or respond to one) a few times a day.  But though it's a notable socialising site to keep in touch with friends, I've actively avoided most of the various trends and memes that come along out of the blue. Posting the colour of your bra-strap or extolling the graceful virtues of your invisible deity of choice is all well and good if it floats your boat, but they aren't partiular carts to which I'd attach my virtual horse, so to mix metaphors. It's not that I look down on such activity, I just find it largely irrelevent and occasionally like virtual debris on my Wall. Don't even get me started on many of the personal details-grabbing 'games'. (As someone pointed out...can you grow dope on Farmville to sell on the streets of Mafia Wars?)

Despite that, once in a while, I'll forward on a good cause or show my 'Like' for others' efforts. So when, a few days ago, several friends decided to follow the trend of changing their icons to their childhood cartoon character of choice (showing some abstract support for anti-child abuse charities) I figured what the heck and changed mine to a Clanger (Yes, I'm aware that Freud would have a field-day!).  It didn't require any real effort and I didn't anticipate any controversy. I was amused when challenged as to whether a woolly clanger was suitable for a 'cartoon' choice  (my argument: it's stop-animation!) but that was it. But, of course, things are never quite that simple, are they?

NOW comes a new message, spreading even faster than the original idea, proclaiming that we've all been hoodwinked and the original meme was all the work of dastardly paedophiles and we've been shamedly roped into spreading their peversion. SHOCK! HORROR!  SHAME! I... Wait. Really?   I mean... SERIOUSLY?   Actually, no. Could we perhaps stop to think for a moment before we spread that kind of accusation?

In what POSSIBLE way could this benefit a paedophile?  The general stereotype is a dirty old man trawling the 'Net for kids to abuse by pretending to be younger and the argument seems to be that if a huge amount of people suddenly change their icon to reflect cartoon characters, then it'll be harder for people to judge ages. Which makes no sense at all, if thought about for more than a indignant minute, because...

a)  If everyone's doing it then a paedophile has no way of working out if he's communicating with a child or not. I'm pretty sure a dirty old man would be horrified to find out he's actually grooming another dirty old man rather than a school-kid, so murking the waters surely works against their peversion to begin with.

b) This isn't pretending to be kids, it's remembering your childhood. Surely people using icons of characters that were popular TWO or THREE decades ago gives a bit of a clue to their pop culture demographic. If you're featuring Noggin the Nog, Trumpton, Bagpuss,  Danger Mouse and - yes - a Clanger, dammit - I'd feel safe in betting you weren't born yesterday. So unless the nefarious plan is to target all those who DON'T feature Barnaby the Bear, Babar the Elephant or the original Wombles, then it all seems somewhat self-defeating.

c) Dear Parents. If you're allowing your children to surf ANY massive social-networking sites without observation and safety measures and which has a 'poke' option,  YOU'RE the ones putting your kids at risk. Now, put that nice TV remote down and come meet your offspring...

d) The NSPCC reports that though it has no idea who started the idea and that it has no official backing, they HAVE seen a marked increase in traffic to their website. So - while I wouldn't have actually ever believed my Clanger would really affect things one way or another - it appears something positive has been generated. So even if the original plan WAS conceived by the love-child of Hitler and Osama Bin Laden, turnaround is fair play and it has acheived something positive. *Yay*, no?

So what have we learned today, kids?

Firstly, I don't wear bra-straps and while I kinda like your invisible deity of choice, I don't appreciate cold-calls on his behalf. AND - perhaps - that Facebook can be a valued communication tool and a cause for good...but with a little mixture of apathy and armchair alarm, also has all the power and indiscrimate damage-control of a ballistic chain letter or a copy of the Daily Mail.

And, dammit,  a Clanger IS an animated character.

Almost a month since my last blog post. I will have to add better scheduling to any new year's resolutions I'm strong-armed into making...

November has been an interesting and pretty busy month. The major event was the Thought Bubble weekend at which I hosted a panel with the likes of John Romita Jnr, Andy Diggle and Richard Hastings - with all of us discussing the growing relationship between comics and the movie/tv industry.  The Walking Dead once again came up as a favourite viewing exprience and seems to have been a major international success  (Don't hate me because I've now seen the entire first season!)  :)  Managed to imbibe some alcohol with the likes of Paul Cornell and Mr JR JR and assorted MillarWorlders and might even have been able to help kick-start a casting process. 

The following day Sabrina Peyton had asked me to come and do some official photography for the Zombie Aid charity walk. Despite quite cold tmpratures (but nothing like THIS week's cold spell). There was a good turn out with at least fifty people in different levels of decomposition - and good to se Glenn Hewitt joining in in fine form. The evening finished off at the FAB Cafe, where our quiz team won first prize with special note given to my required concept doodle. Various books are now mine!

Also had a good chat with Mark Millar about his current workload and the big UK con he's organising next April. Have sorted press pass and access, so should be good.

December looks busier than November. Tomorrow I head off to the Showcase event in London until Friday where there will be various press screnings and press conferences. It's turned into something of an obstacle course rather than a marathon, but hopefully it will all work out.  Monday 6th: I have an unfeasibly early start to get back to London for Tron and True Grit press activities. On the 11th Simon, Sheryl, Jake and I will head to the Tropical Gardens (courtesy of a very apologetic Leeds City Council - see last post!). The 17th is the Impact 'do' and on 21st I head to Iowa...

Where, like here, it may decide to snow.  Brrrr.

*

I occasionally have a good moan here on my blog. Rarely does it reach a rant status.

Buckle up.

Tonight there were... fireworks.  Each year Roundhay Park in Leeds (famous for being a public park and also a venue for open-air rock concerts and the like) holds a big bonfire and firework display. Whizzz! Bang! Flash! Etc. It's free and attracts a few thousand people into its vast expanse. It's a good enough venue that there's not tight crowding but merely people standing around and watching everything from a safe distance. Hence my friends Simon, Sheryl, her son Jake and I decided we'd head up there again this year and perhaps meet up with another old friend, Karen.

Finding a clear area we took up a postion where we could overlook the park and proceedings and Simon put his camera on a tripod he'd brought with him.  Ten minutes later we were approached by a council official who said tripods were banned. We politely scoffed as the website makes no mention of that, it was hardly in anyone's way but they insisted it was on health-and-safety grounds. We indicated there were no issues as there was no-one around us, we could surround the tripod and no-one could possibly trip over it any more than they could over the no-problem backpacks we were carrying. Simon said, quite rightly, that he wasn't sure this rule was actually real and asked the officials to bring across someone further up the food-chain to explain the precise rule and give him details before he put it away.

They left and a few minutes later slightly higher-ranking securty officials came across and told us to put the tripod away. Again, Simon and I politely but firmly questioned the logic - after all, for a shot of fireworks you're best finding a way to keep the camera still to avoid basic blur (ie: need a tripod!). We'd been there last year with no problem. No rules against tripods had been posted and we'd seen others tonight using them without being harrassed - again, this wasn't a packed stadium or the like. Then, suddenly.... ah, the problem WASN'T the tripod but the fact that... our cameras suddenly have... detachable lenses!!! Apparently we needed... a PERMIT for those. Simon and I looked at each and rolled our eyes.  Since when? The security people said as professional photographers we had to get permission to take profssional photos. We pointed out we weren't profssional photographers, we were just normal membrs of the public who just had a certain type of very popular camera - not unlike many other attendees we could see.  They pointed that we COULD  have used smaller cameras - like on the iPhone - but not cameras with any type of other lenses. Again, Simon asked to see ANY reference to that bizarre rule in formal form. Had things changed since last year? We insisted that none of these rules were posted anywhere for the free, public event and that we weren't creating any problems or breaking any known rules. Then then changed their story AGAIN for the second time in a few minutes... now the new reason we couldn't use our cameras was because " ...there are kids in the park and there are laws that forbid pictures of children..." I quickly pointed out that they'd just said pictures WERE permitted from other types of cameras so their latest generic reason made absolutely no sense - and as a journalist I knew they weren't even quoting the correct law in the correct way and it couldn't be implemented that way in this situation.  To which - and I kid you not -  one of the security people pointed at me and said to his colleague with a smile...

"He's just admitted he's a journalist - I told you he WAS a professional photographer..."

I explained, incredulously, that a journalist WRITES, not takes photographs and I wasn't here to do either officially, but the security people said it was too late and we were now being banned from the park and they would escort us out.  I commented on the distance we'd travelled to be there and that - again - we were just members of the public with basic cameras. I didn't even have time to find Karen before we were literally frog-marched out. When I stopped briefly to dial Karen and leave a message on her phone before we left, I was told to "KEEP WALKING!"  Seriously. I kept my temper, but the security people were in no doubt how frustrated we were an I didn't start walking again until I was good and ready.

Once outside the park we talked with the local REAL police who were hugely sympathetic and admitted the way the rules were being enforced was bizarre and arbitrary, but as - technically - this was a private Council event for the public they couldn't interfere on Council property (ie: the actual park).

Sheryl and Jake - sans cameras - still had their evening out spoiled. Simon who'd come all the way from Haworth was rightly livid and I'm... still steaming. And wondering how many other people were literally manhandled out of a public, tax-payer funded event by jobsworth security guys exercising an inaccurate or unfeasible remit. I even heard later that a party of schoolkids/students with cameras were asked to leave as well.

Sometimes I think the word is populated by fuckwits. Formal complaint on its way tomorrow.

*Still managed to take a decent photo (see above). Ha!

So, the Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear just took place in Washington DC. I've seen people passionate about this and also pouring scorn on it.  But whether it's a genuinely wise move for a comedian/commentator to run something as extensive like this or not (and if it's not why can Glenn Beck claim any kind of right ot triumph?) then I admire the spirit in which it has been organised.

Because right now 'fact' seems to be a dirty word and 'patriot' seems like carte-blanche. Far too often I'm seeing those prsonal insults flying at those with othr opinions before any real debate can start... and the best case scenario now seems to be merely agreeing to disagree. Even that carries with it a lightness and dilution that remain worrying... because the one thing we all forget is that there is a difference between the right to have and express an opinion and how much that opinion is actually worth. Net access is available to many and blog entries (such as this one) are little more than a click away... but that equal access doesn't give your opinion equal weight in any argument. I've been told "Well, you say this and I say that, so who is to say who's right?'  Well, the facts are.

Because facts don't change. Interpretation and extrapolation are the things that change. We all know that statistics can be both true and wholly unreliable and distorted given on how you choose to use them, but our opinions don't change the specific facts at the heart of it. For instance: I can believe the moon is made of cheese and preach its cheddaryness to all and sundry; I can have 100,000 people with placards claiming how right I am and how goshdran tasty it is. But if a guy who has studied lunar science for decades, been to the moon, picked up a sample, brought it home, analysed and can present it to me saying it's NOT made of cheese, then it's NOT a case of 50/50. I have every right to hold true to my stiltonesque belief system - but all evidence to the contrary suggests to the truly impartial that I'm DEMONSTRABLY wrong. My opinion isn't as valid as a fact.

So what everyone needs to do is work out how much of their belief system is their opinion and what is an immutable fact . What is rhetoric and spin and what is an impartial observation based on study of every single source available on the subject.  And don't ask someone else to be fair and balanced on your behalf, don't merely cite a tv show or a single newspaper report, otherwise you're abdicating your responsibility to be called a rational thinking human being rather than a sheep. If you aren't interested in doing the by-definition extensive footwork and the mindwork then it's easy... simply don't express an opinion - whatever it is - because if you don't know why you think something, then yelling randomly  anyway means you are (and  liable to look) stupid. You don't have to be Olympic-level articulate... but you need to be able to speak in coherent sentences and join the dots without getting abstractly disorientated with either.

It doesn't mean we all have to agree, but it does mean we should know why we don't.

Or as someone much more eloquently put it at the rally:

Well, it's Hallowe'en - or technically the day before, but if our friends in the US can make a season out of it, then I think we can claim a weekend. 

Most years I've headed down to th FAB Cafe in Leeds or elsewhere to join MillarWorlders for some spooking and frivolity, but this year it's looking as if veryone is spread out and there'll be no significant partying.  Curses!

But taking a break from the incessant article writing, I played with my camera and PhotoShop to create the image to the left and I'm pretty pleased with the result.

FAR too much real death and pain in the world at the moment and my thoughts go out to those friends and their families touched by it recently - but not enough fictional zombies and the like.  The Walking Dead starts in the US tomorrow and in the UK next Friday 5th. I've already seen Eps 1-4 of the first six-parter (don't eat hate me because I'm lucky) and I can report it's quality stuff.

In the meantime, I'm determined to earn as many pennies as possible in the run to up to Christmas and my return to Iowa. I will be shamelessly ebaying and touting my t-shirt designs (ideal for presents!). You read it here first...

Yes, yes, fine. I know. Lack of posts. Duly noted.  I'd planned to blog a lot more while in Iowa, but deadlines and relaxing etc got in the way and in the end it all got away from me.

I got back from Iowa last week and went from 75 degrees + to a maximum of about 50 as we touched down in Manchester. The flights back were impressively on time and largely free of any drama or misfortune. The planes took off on time and arrived early in each case. Baggage also arrived in time and intact - which is always a bonus.

But I haven't been able to completely shake the pains, aches and genrally 'meh' associated with jet-lag.  It usually takes me the rest of the week, but now, even ten days later I'm all achey, my sleep-patterns are all over the place. Not happy.  But working through it.

I was also straight back into IMPACT deadlines and other duties. Suddenly there were more pages of Impact to fill than originally planned (so much scurrying to get sorted), then down to a rain-swept London to talk with Bruce Willis. That went pretty well - he's a confident but not cocky guy and knows how to work a room, something still lost on many other A-Listers. His newest film release RED is perfectly good fun and escapism and has Helen Mirren with automatic weapons (really, what else do you need to know?).

I was due to run a talk as part of NSFW (which, for the uninitiated isn't Not Safe For Work but actually National Schools Film Week) but it was cancelled at the last minute. As it was likely to revolve around the Twilight: Eclipse film, this was probably no great loss to anyone!  However, I should still be running a movie/comics panel of the Thought Bubble day at the upcoming Leeds International Film Festival in November.

Right now, with some due monies paid for design work and still a little left to come in, I'm going to be pushing ahead on the design front, so any spreading of the word is gratefully received!

And, yes, I'll try to blog more before I return to Iowa.

I wanted to lighten the regular postings up a bit, but watching the news about Pastor Terry Jones, a Florida man who will, with his congregation, be conducting a public Qu'ran burning is one of tose things begging for comment.  Jones says he's sick and tired of the Bible being disrespected and wants to show those pesky muslims that he can dish it out too. He's been told by Hillary Clinton, the Pope and other religious leaders of the disrespect he's showing to an entire faith and General Petraeus has said that the act is bound to be seized upon and used as anti-American propganda.  The Pastor had decided that despite all that he's going to goddam go ahead anyway because what are a few more soldier deaths when Christinaity's good name is beign beshmirshed?  It's enough to make a deity proud, no?

It is truly sad that Americans may find themselves branded as a whole collective evil entity and enemy of a whole culture because of the way that the coverage of one needlessly provocative act - by the smallest minority members of a faith -  is mercilessly propagandised and used to push a certain militant mindest back in the likes of Iraq and Afghanistan.


Because that would never happen the other way around, would it?

For me book-burners (of any faith or following) rank somewhere between Paris Hilton, kiddie-fiddlers, Hitler and people who talk at the theatre. Hell, I wouldn't even burn Tony Blair's magnum pompous.

So, I'll just leave you with the words in the image above, from a writer so wise that you may want to do something special to him.

Next time, lighter posts. I promise.

It's like mainlining a Big Brother marathon presented by Paris Hilton in at an attempt to understand War & Peace - yet unfeasibly more eye-bleedingly painful.


But what are the ACTUAL effects of that? One one hand you could argue that people's belief systems just get a little skewed - that if they don't seek out the bigger picture, they'll merely snuggle up in the apathetic armchair and parrot the latest pundit's words of wit. Let Glenn Beck do the pudgy little leg-work.

Which would be a bad enough kind of self-harm in itself. Unless you judge it against THIS. Watch as a few seconds into some video footage,  this happens:



The man in question was a worker at Ground Zero and walking through the crowd merely looking at what was going on. Within seconds there are degrading comments about 'his religion' and shouts of 'Run, coward!' as he makes his way out. A big guy in a faux worker's hat barrels through to try and physically confront him and it's only the intervention of the the pedestrian's friend and a savvy event organiser that stops this getting any more uglier than it is. All the while, the crowd continues chanting and trying to surround him.

And you just know that even when the pedestrian's story is revealed later and - guess what - that he's not even of that faith, that the excuse from the masses will be 'Well, he LOOKED muslim!'  You want to stop there for a second and read that excuse again?  Please. Your fallback postion and defence is going to be that you were acting aggressively to someone because you THOUGHT he was of a certian religion?   "Honestly, officer, what's the problem...I was only picking on him because I thought he was a faggot....  Sorry, my mistake, I'm a God-fearing Christian my wrath was only meant to be directed at real niggers..." Ouch? Yes, some of those words still sting, because  socially we're supposed to be past that. We're supposed to be... what was it again, ah yes... civilised.

And I'm afraid that when news networks put out inflammatory bulletins that don't reflect the bigger picture, that breed fear and panic and distrust of someone you never met simply because someone THEY never met did something bad, then THIS is what happens... and justified indignation isuddenly sn't just reserved for those who commit crimes but for those that, y'know, MIGHT, for those that, well,  COULD and for those who make a very convenient scapegoat for other agendas. Look.. watch my left hand and don't ask what my right hand is doing (though, I think we can guess).

The likes of the Anti-Park 51 demonstrators and the Tea Party events may well have certain issues that they feel justified in raising. More power to them. Nothing bad can come from a truly good debate and the world is better for those discussions.  March if you must, but be careful of the zombie cheerleaders.

But until the networks stop throwing poisoned scraps to the masses and until those more honest and intelligent demonstrators demand that the fringe elements - who utterly discredit them with epiphets, violence, bigotry and truly horrible spelling  - be exorcised from their midst, then you will have been hijacked all over again. 

But with words not box-cutters.

Unless you've been hiding under a stone for the last few weeks, you're obviously aware that one of the biggest issues is the 'Ground Zero Mosque' debate. Depending on your point of view and attitude to the situation it's been a bad time to be an American patriot, a muslim or a property developer. (Delete as appropriate). But it's sure as hell been a bad time to be a journalist, if the standard of reporting is anything to judge by.

Firstly, let me say that I totally get and can  respect the right of anyone in that immediate area of New York to be sensitive to the issue. IF I had relatives or friends die in a huge tragedy linked specifically to a cause or religion and IF someone told me that anyone remotely connected with that was planning something official nearby, my ears would be pricked and my righteous indignAtion primed. That in itself is human instinct and needs no apology. But, equally, as we became civilised, we learned not to JUST act instinctively. (If we hadn't this laptop would have been thrown out the window more times than I care to mention).

Contrary to convenient packaging or commentary which may no doubt follow, this blog entry doesn't really seek to say whether the mosque should be there or not. It's about the appalling way that accuracy has been jettisoned in the race to win that argument. It's not what the conclusion should be but a rather damning overview of the methods used to win hearts, minds and front pages. To misquote the Evita musical (and, when all else fails, can't people of all faiths all turn to a Madonna?)  'they didn't say much, but they said it LOUD...'

So, balance. Firstly, what have many outlets and pundits got wrong?

Ground Zero. Mosque:  Well, it's not there and it's arguably not a mosque. (Kind of important, to get those bits right at least if you want anyone to take you seriously). Calling it that to stir up passions is convenient but is equivalent to looking at The House of Commons and calling it The Groucho Club. I mean, fairly close to each other, both populated by people desperate to get to the bar and talking about their past trumphs and latest deals.. so, what's the real difference? But factually? Even by the most kindest estimates the proposed building is over two blocks away from the topper-most corner of Ground Zero. Not even in sight of it. And though it contains a designated area for praying, it's not specifically a mosque, it's a study centre. Again, it's like saying a library that has a children's play area is a nursery... hardly a big point - unless you're campaigning against fundamental nurseries. However if you consider a prayer-area acts in the same way as a mosque, it's possibly fair to make some sort of a basic comparison between the two.

It's on 'Hallowed Ground':  Again, putting the emotional aspect to one side for a second... has the local strip-joint, closer to the Ground Zero site, actually put a complaint that the islamic building might cast the area into disrepute... because, hey, y'know... there are  standards?' No. Should the long-standing muslim restaurants and businesses - for which there doesn't seem to have been a single complaint - be told to close up and leave as their presence is insulting or perhaps they hide covert converts? And what will that guy selling tacky unique collectors' 9/11 keyrings do for a living?

Opening on 9/11:  Well, no, actually it isn't. Indeed, if you look at any reputable news-sources, you can quite easily trace it back to a misquote in which 'breaking ground' was mentioned and 'opening' was the word reported and for which most sources have now begrudgingly corrected themselves. Anyone who doesn't know the difference really shouldn't be quoting it. There's a chance that actual building could commence around that time (certainly not this year, unlikley to be next year), but no solid day has been decided upon. Given that the funds needed to construct the building aren't anywhere near ready yet, the most ambitious proposals put the start date in around eighteen months time. Incidentally, it's also worth noting that prayer services have been available on the site for over a year with little controversy until recently.

The Iman openly supports terrororism:  And again, it takes all of five minutes to find the supposedly offending text cited by certain news-channels in which Rauf  'supports' Hamas.  Except he doesn't.

"I'm not a politician. I try to avoid the issues. The issue of terrorism is a very complex question...I'm a bridge builder. I define my work as a bridge builder. I do not want to be placed, nor do I accept to be placed in a position of being put in a position where I am the target of one side or another... The targeting of civilians is wrong. It is a sin in our religion. Whoever does it, targeting civilians is wrong. I am a supporter of the state of Israel. ... I will not allow anybody to put me in a position where I am seen by any party in the world as an adversary."


... subsequently reported by the likes of Fox News as basically  'Rauf supports Hamas'.  Which is a bit like me being asked which is worse rape or murder and when replying that I refuse to put them on a scale of badness, being quoted as saying 'John refuses to condemn rapists'. 

The centre will be partially-funded by Iran:   Well, it's debatable. Technically at this point, it's not being inherently funded by anyone of note as funding is still being sort. The claim comes from a quote several months ago when - before the hoo-hah, one of the committee was asked whether all the monies would be collected domestically. It was said that, primarilly, that would be the first cause of action and then possibly internationally if needed. When asked specifically whether Iran might be sought to contribute, the answer was that no-one could comment as the decision either way had not been made. So most accurately, at this point, NO Iran has not put any money into the project. (Iran *offering* to put money up isn't the same thing either...)  Also, it you apply the Glenn Beck rule of line-drawing, it's also possible to squint and link Fox News to its potential funding as well.  You probably won't hear that on Bill O'Reilly's no-spin zone.

It will attract fundamentalists!: While not provably impossible, the press doesn't suggest that  the very, very few abortion-clinic bombers in a country attack in the name of God, should lead to the shutting down or banning of churches.

Christians don't support the Mosque:  On the eve of Ramadan on 11 August 2010, the National Council of Churches, its Interfaith Relations Commission and Christian participants in the National Muslim-Christian Initiative, issued a strong call for respect and said the proposed structure was  ' a community centre dedicated to learning, compassion, and respect for all people. Christ calls us to ‘love your neighbour as yourself’ (Matthew 22:39). It is this commandment, more than the simple bonds of our common humanity, which is the basis for our relationship with Muslims around the world.”


What the press got right / fair questions:
Mosque at the Pentagon? One pro-commentator pointed out that if there's a mosque at the Pentgaon, why shouldn't there be one anywhere near Ground Zero? After all, both were hit.  Elements of the press did subsequently point out that there actually isn't a mosque at the Pentagon. Some did point out that there IS a specifically designated worship area where people of any religion can come to pray according to their faith. Muslims and Christians are equally welcome and regular services for each of the faiths are held. It has been in operation since the Pentagon's reconstruction in 2002  (Source: http://www.factcheck.org/). So it's one of those pesky perspective issues.

Public opinion is against the mosque.  This is undeniably true, though  this has risen hugely since different aspects of the media started running their own campaigns. Before this, even Fox News was supporting it.  Large crowds have gathered outside the mosque to protest. Few otherwise verbal politicians - of either ilk - have actually gone there. Public opinion doesn't say where they WOULD find any mosque acceptable.

Why should a mosque go up when a Greek Orthodox church hasn't been allowed nearby?   At first glance this is a wholly fair point. If there's so much support for an Islamic building, why hasn't the St Nicholas Greek Orthadox church received just as much in its efforts to be rebuilt even closer to the site?  Some say it smacks of favourtism and it certainly seems not enough efforts have been made. Closer inspection indicates that while there does seem to have been some inequality, the delays and funding have also been the effect of bad communication between the church and the Port Authority and disagreements over specific needs and arguments from both sides as to where that misscommunication began. Learn more at: http://www.projo.com/news/content/GROUND_ZERO_SIDEBAR_08-22-10_VNJJB79_v17.20ec8b2.html which has quotes from all sides.

Cordoba is an inappropriate name for the centre:  Well, historically, that’s also the name of the Spanish city conquered by Muslims in 700 A.D. So, yeah, maybe not concillatory, people! It's worth noting  this original, traditional name appears to only have been an option not a definite name and has reportedly been discounted. It will now be called Park51.  (Futher Q&A information via: http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2010/08/qa_on_the_proposed_islamic_cen.html )

If churches aren't allowed in muslim countries, why shouldn't we restrict mosques here?  A completely fair observation if you want to hold such muslim countries as the paragon and standard of how religious culture should be operated.

Being against the 'mosque' doesn't mean you're a racist.  No, of  course it doesn't. There are plenty of people with legitimate questions and who may come to a conclusion that has nothing to do with race. It would only be racism if you began to see every muslim as a potential terrorist-in-waiting and discriminated against a person/project simply on that reasoning - or if you stood against the building mosques at all. Then, by simplt definition, it becomes a race issue.  
~
So there you go. The basics.  I know I've learned more than I knew...

Whatever conclusions you may wish to come to on this specific issue, it must always be important to know what is an opinion and what is a demonstrable fact.   Whether they are ultimately right or wrong, citing one as the other is likely to make a debater look compromised and rather foolish. Yes, there are grey areas of contention, but we should never go with the thinking that 'everything is a grey area because every opinion is valid and worth the same'. 

It's not. If it WAS, then knowledge and research would be a dirty words. (I'm totally willing to be proven wrong on anything. But there's the rub, to do so I need you to give me opposing facts, not your opinions on mine). Perhaps in a world where we demand instant soundbytes and emotional punditry rather than accurate invesitgations and demonstrable facts, they already are.

According to several of my friends I really have to remember to blog more. Of course they also say I should design more, come out for drinks more and write more novels. I have no real excuse for my tardiness except to say that you can usually find me on Facebook and after a day of writing, sometimes the last thing I want to do is sit down and write more. However.


So, what's new? Nothing spectacularly different on Planet Moz. I'm still doing a ton of work and spending a significant proportion of my time reminding people that while I love doing it, I'm not doing it for the love. Cold hard cash is always appreciated and I'm determined to make inroads into that even if sometimes have to be more forthright than I want to be. In that regard, I'm still available for textual healing and designated drawing. You know where to find me.

I have relaunched the ThereGoesTheDay Store with a new look, expanded products and an evolving, streamlined navigation system. It's all in the presentation and in the next few weeks all the peripheral links and imagery should be fully finished. At the moment all the main bits are looking better and working as they should. So, I'd appreciate any and all spreading the word about the Store, as it genuinely has some great ideas for birthday and christmas presents. New designs will also be forthcoming on a regular basis. You can follow the links elsewhere on this page or go directly to www.cafepress.co.uk/theregoestheday  or www.cafepress.com/theregoestheday  (depending on where you live).
I had invites to do some A-Team and Expendables stuff, but timings and other considerations put a damper on those and there's no immediate travel plans before September, when I'll be back in Iowa.

However, I will be blogging more. Probably.

I spent most of the last week in Paris, which  - let's face it - is not bad work if you can get it.  Primarily it was to meet up with Carmel, Annie and Victoria who are on HLWW duty and lend a hand as we looked after the likes of Adrian, Peter, Lizzie, Jim and David Abramowitz who were doing panels at the Paris Comic Con.

I arrived on Wed afternoon and made my way to the apartment which was just around the corner from the Louvre. The ladies were out but after about thirty minutes of 'uh-oh, they did remember I was coming today, right?' they returned from shopping and I got to look around inside the place we were staying. Very nice and a good locale - a few minutes away from the Metro and any number of sites to take in.  Later in the evening we took a walk down through the Louvre gardens and down towards the Seine and the Quai de la Tournelle where much of the Highlander series was shot. As always my camera was surgically attached and I managed to get some great shots.



But for now - after flying home on Monday -  it's just back to deadlines and chasing the cheques and plotting for HLWW.  ;)

C'est la vie.

Firstly, what’s happening in the Gulf is an environmental disaster. Man's eagerness to maximise profits trumping risk to the environment. On that we're all mostly agreed. Another 9/11 as President Obama equated it to, today? Well, that's debatable but there's no doubt people are angry and it may affect attitudes on the country's domestic attitiude. Quite right too.


Oil and water don’t mix and when they do it’s never a good thing. When they don’t mix on the scale they are (aren’t) at the moment, it’s even more significant. While BP’s chairman Tony Hayward may well have been technically right in his analysis about the less dramatic ratio of sea to actual oil over-all, Hayward did himself nor his company any favours by stating he ‘wanted this to be over so he could get his life back’ in the middle of a crisis that started with significant ACTUAL loss of life. That’s like a politician bemoaning the state of the traffic in the city on the way to catch his private plane to his third home - it maybe not be technically wrong, but it’s hardly likely to garner one iota of sympathy in proper context. A chairman must not only help run a company but is often the public face of it and in most ways Hayward has proven himself to have all the grace of an oil-soaked sea-bird so often seen on the nightly news.

However, as the beaches and faces darken, the finger-pointing begins in earnest and there’s some points that seemingly do need highlighting more than they have.

BP, as the lead company, may well shoulder some of the blame, but with no clear formal investigation over exactly who IS to blame, it’s wholly inappropriate at this point to ONLY hold BP solely responsible. As pointed out in UK newspapers - eager to be patriotic, maybe, but still factually correct - the rig in question is actually owned and managed by Transocean (an American company), the sub-contractor responsible for securing it was Halliburton (an American company) and the piece of equipment that most believed ultimately failed - the blow-out preventer - and failed to stop the disaster was manufactured by Cameron International (you’ve guessed it - American). At this point, BP’s name is at the forefront of every news report and there seems to have been problems with oversight, but most US news networks have barely mentioned the other companies that must surely be investigated for equal negligence or complicity as well.

Equally let’s stop calling this company British Petroleum. As a modern international conglomerate, it hasn’t gone by that moniker for a decade and at this point has an equal amount of US and UK members on the board with a huge amount of American shareholders. Despite the ‘British’ part of the name originally, it’s now arguably just as American as it is European. Perhaps it’s time to embrace that aspect in the same way that the New York Post marvellously claimed (hopefully with irony) that US BEATS UK 1-1, on its sporty front page a few days ago.

BP has been criticised for not handing out compensation fast enough, which may well be justified criticism but it has initiated such procedures without being asked and the amounts - when actually delivered - are not insubstantial. In some cases this clearly hasn’t been fast enough, in other cases some locals were more than satisfied with the amount.

But before anyone gets too heavy-handed and paranoid and instinctively patriotic, Obama’s recent tone is largely for his domestic market and to placate the people who were/are saying he hasn’t done enough. However, he HAS been critical of the other companies involved, even if it’s not been that widely reported in that same market. Equally, it seems silly to label this as Obama’s ‘Katrina’. In this oil-spill case Obama waited for advice, allowed the supposedly responsible parties to hopefully start behaving pro-actively, allowed BP to try a number of tactics that all failed before he started ‘kicking ass’ and saying that the situation was ballooning too far and needed more affirmative action rather than just talk and ill-fated efforts. As any politician will tell you, progress isn’t always really measured publicly, but lack of progress certainly is. In the case of Katrina’s flooding of New Orleans, it seemed that administration was ineffectual in doing anything AT ALL to begin with - to the extent that they said they weren’t helping people because they couldn’t reach them, four days AFTER the ABC and other networks started flying their own guys in and reporting live from the stadium where many survivors had gathered. The Katrina controversy grew out of a President seemingly out of touch and praising organisations like FEMA who failed to respond quickly enough… the oil spill situation is rather born out of the many unsuccessful attempts to cure an escalating problem - rather than merely ignoring it completely. That’s not to say serious criticism of the response can’t be made, but it’s a different complaint and context.

I never thought I’d stand up for an oil company in ANY way and I still believe that the inherent dangers are often glossed over by companies wanting to make money and who are reduced to finger-pointing when things DO go wrong. And this isn’t meant to be a defence of BP (who clearly seem inept on several levels and the evidence keeps a'rolling in), it's merely a plea for a wider, broader context before the blame card is finally thrown in any one direction. When anyone is found to be truly and provably negligent for such disasters and subsequent loss of life and damage, they must accept the responsibilities that they are well paid for and be prosecuted under the full weight of the law and made to puniatively pay for that as well as making things right on a practical level. If BP are ultimately the guilty party, throw the book at them, but doing so too early merely makes the other oil companies hover like vultures.

And in a week when it was revealed that Union Carbide Corporation’s former chairman Warren Anderson, has  *refused* to even co-operate, never mind stand trial for what appears to be a complicit role in the company’s Bophal disaster in 1984 (the Indian chemical disaster that killed many and affected the health of over 100,000 people) and is happy to be roam free in the US without any fear of extradition… the blame game and the acceptance of accountability issues seem as unpredictably blunt, opportunistic and buoyant as ever…

Troubled waters, indeed. This time pouring more oil may not help.

The last week or so has felt very much like a holding-pattern on many fronts - there's plenty of things to be done but several decisions to be made before most of them go forward at any pace. In some cases the ball's in my court, but in most I'm waiting on others for the nod or shake.  As any reasonably creative person will tell you, that means an air of frustration... it tends to lead to the feast or famine situation where there's not a lot to do and then suddenly a lot to fit into a short period of time. Actually there IS a ton to be done, but the specifics and momentum is stalled so I can't plan more than a few days ahead.  Hopefully some of the various projects and situations will resolve themselves in a way that means good use of whatever talents I have and a little more money in the bank-account so I can get more done down the road. Yup, Catch 22,vicious circles and all that!

I'm now confirmed to be heading off the Paris Comic-Con 30th June - 5th July and will be seeing Carmel Macpherson and the Highlander guys and hopefully chatting with some  actual comic peeps as well. It's a relatively brief trip and done on a budget to match but  it means that I can head up the road to LBA and be at CDG airport within an hour or so - which makes an easy and direct trip for once. I'm hoping there'll be a few good photographic opportunities as well (This is Paris, after all, dammit!).

I've found time to make some tweaks to the look of this blog and website. Nothing fundamental, but a bit more of a dynamic design and pattern to the banner above this entry and some of the links will be getting corrected in the days to come.

Other than that... ever onward.

I spent last weekend up in the Yorkshire Dales with Simon Hopkinson, Glenn Hewitt, Sally Warr and other P365ers. The reason was a chance to do some landscape photography, but it was just as good a reason to have a change of scene and socialise a bit more.   We all stayed at the Ecobarn which was a great base of operations - it's a fully-converted barn near Dent which was originally started by entertainer Mike Harding as a recording studio and more lately as a place that can sleep and entertain up to ten people.

We managed to garner the full ten persons and with fingers crossed that we'd all get on with other depsite some having never met others before, went up there for four days. Thankfully, everyone seemed easy to get along with and it seems likely I've got some new poker buddies (I haven't really played Texas Hold 'Em in a few years but somehow managed to win out on the Saturday night  - though for a good thirty minutes it was a battle of cards, wits and double entendres with newcomer Arianna McCann which entertained everyone).  Arianna won out the Sunday night, but Simon and Cate were strong opposition and Glenn proved a great dealer (and folder). There was much meriment, wine, beer and even a bit of Doctor Who. Hoorah!

The weather was changeable but survivable, with rain on the Saturday but sun enough the rest of the time. There was much walking, but I still managed to put on a few lbs that I'll need to lose. The owners of the Ecobarn were friendly and supplied fresh bread and breakfast rolls every morning and  we cooked some impressive spaghetti bolognese. I think we all agreed that we'd go back there again - and recommend it to others. Consider it done.

It was sad and shocking to hear about the shooting-spree that dominated headlines later in the week (taking place less than an hour form where we stayed), but thankfully, that kind of event is a huge rarity. The rest of the week was back to the realities, trials and tribulations of magazine editing and article writing. But any deadline you can get behind you is a good one.

Still contemplating Paris at the start of July for the Comic-Con there. I'd rather be in Iowa for Jilly's birthday, but bank-balance and holiday accumulation notwithstanding, a brief, shorter trip to France might have to do until September...

It was completely my intention to keep regular blog postings coming while I was away in Iowa, but amid some urgent DVD sleeve designing and tearing my hair out over Impact stuff (you'd think I'd learn) and wanting to make the most of what was generally *supposed* to be a break, I just never got around to sitting down and creating more entries.

I know. You're devastated. You can recall the search parties now...

The trip was a good one. Three weeks instead of four and starting a week later due to the ash cloud, but at least I got to Iowa intact - my luggage arriving about 36hrs behind me, at least it wasn't lost forever. Jilly had less working hours this time and so while she had course work to do (solid As) and still enjoyed breaking up her siestas with 40 wink naps, we had much more time together.  I finally talked her into letting me do some formal portrait shots of her and I'm very happy with the results, as is she and all other people with good taste.

They called him back, established his identity, found his Facebook page, realised he was involved in doing voice-work for Geico and then put Douglas' message on their own website, published his contact details and told people to ring Douglas AND his employee and to complain about his attitude.  A lot of people did. Subsequently, Geico decided to not employ Douglas any more. Douglas is suing for what is called Tortious Interference (essentially his professional life being hit unfairly). 

A top FreedomWorks rep just appeared on Fox News (with bright and breezy Megyn Kelly burbling that Douglas must have some nerve to sue people he insulted) and the rep refuted that Douglas has any case he can bring. The rep also says that they make no apologies for publicising Douglas's details and that future employers have a right to know about the leanings of a person they want to hire.

Really? Because... no. The the last time I checked, this the selfsame Tea Party that complains that they are being unfairly targetted by the media, that say they have a right to express their opinions and believe its unAmerican to be penalised, harrassed or brow-beaten for doing so.  Douglas may have proven himself a bit of an idiot for doing what he did - but unless Douglas called from Geico's building or he himself explicitly brought them into the complaint against FreedomWorks, then as far as I can see Douglas has an excellent case for harrassment.  FreedomWorks, on the other hand, looks like hate other people going after them personally, but are more than happy to release the hounds to destroy someone's unconnected career when it suits.

It's good to talk. It's good to fly. Both should be done without a great big honkin' shadow hanging over your head because of what you do in your spare time.

After accumulating around 2hrs on a 10p a minute line to Expedia, I tried the old fallback postion of simply hitting the unmentioned '0' at every option and almost instantly got through to someone.  Take that, Mount St Unpronouncable...

The news is not great - and as expected, no flights for the next few days at least, though they say conditions are slowly improving ever so slightly (So....I guess BBC, SKY, CNN and NATS are wrong that it's actually getting worse and could last months...). So it's pretty sure I won't be going anywhere until at least next weekend. The volcano probably won't stop spewing its guts, but we simply need the winds to change direction and at the moment they're simply not.

However, the woman I spoke to did say that once people who are stuck abroad are dealt with, people like myself will be prioritised ahea dof any 'new' bookings. Essentially, if flights were to be re-instated around Friday/Saturday, I could feasibly be onboard an aircraft by this time next week. Hmmmm. But right now, they can't take a new booking so I have to sit tight and keep an eye on the helpful BBC website.

I'm not the only one with locations problems. Paul Simpson and Andy Diggle are supposed to be in LA, Dina is stuck in Madeira, Molly's still in Crotia and I'm pretty sure several hundred thousand people are in Birmingham.

In the meantime, Jilly and Tasha have agreed to blow up Iceland on my behalf if it helps. Ain't love grand?

Everything is in the lap of the gods - most expecially Vulcan. 

Most illogical.

For example.....


These are just two examples of where the media is alsmost dictating the rules of engagement rather than the argument. Both situations would benefit from people acknowleding the real conflicts involved even if they can't agree.


And anyone who disagrees with that is an idiot.

Last night Amerca voted  and - with a few votes to spare - passed the Health Care bill.  It's been a controversial issue but I have to say I think this is a hugely important and significant change for the better.

Here's the thing. I know there's a rational debate to be had on health and perhaps a solid argument that the current bill is flawed. But that rational debate has not been happening. In fact, it's not been happening for about seventy years.

I'm told by Fox News etc that most Americans don't want it, but almost everyone I know, DID want it passed. Certainly my girlfriend who had to go into hospital for an immediate and serious operation and then had to leave after two days (when the doctor said she should be in for more), still in huge pain, because her insurance didn't extend any further. Certainly the people who've lost house, home and family after years of careful and responsible living, solely because they had the nerve to get ill and some small print pointed out that the insurance companies only wanted to help well people.

No, instead of a debate, we've had Palin, Beck,O'Reilly, Coulter etc running what goes beyond merely skewed reporting into blatant propaganda and misinformation for the GOP. I say that not as someone who's a 'Leftie' but as a journalist. On that level alone, what passes for 'journalism' was shameful. We've had a slew of buzzwords and sound-bites that are designed to misinterpret the facts and create an almost hysteria in the process. Reasonable points and genuine disagreements have been lost under the slew of 'DEATH-CAMPS FOR GRANNY!', 'SOCIALIST NAZIS ARE AFTER YOUR ORGANS!' and 'OBAMA IS HITLER!'. (Seriously, a week or so ago on Facebook, a fairly right-wing actor posted an anti-Bill thread and talked how it was against the spirit that made America great. Tens of people immediately agreed with him and yet when a regular replier started talking about 'Omama and his gorrila wife' and I called them out on it as going beyond fair debate, I was told she wasn't being racist and had a right to be genuinely upset!). Not one person called them out - and this in a 'Tea-Partiers should be taken seriously' thread????????)

If the more rational Republicans - and there obviously are some - believe in elements of the bill and that giving a basic level of care to everyone isn't somehow equivalent to Stalin, but not enough of it to support it, they've had more than enough time in the last administration to do something. Not just talk, but DO. No-one did.

So last night, it looks like someone finally has. It's fine to disagree with it and explain why in coherent, well-researched sentences, but instead of the buzzwords, let's continue a genuine debate. Here's the chance to say 'THIS is how WE'd do it and this is WHY our way is better'. Instead? I'm already hearing pundits telling me that they blame the would-be 1960s radicals and those actors out of Hollywood and San Francisco for what's happened today and that he will do anything he can to reverse this or bring it down.  Sack the speaker! Call Stupak a baby-killer! That poor people regularly abuse the ER by going there when they get ILL. (Shock!) That America just took a step towards its own destruction. That this bill will explicitly help fund abortion. Etc etc etc..

The facts? The immediate benefits?

New help for some uninsured: People with a medical condition that has left them uninsurable may be able to enroll in a new federally subsidized insurance program that is to be established within 90 days. The legislation appropriates $5 billion for this, although that may not be enough to cover all who apply; it's not clear how much consumers would pay as their share of the cost. About 200,000 people are covered in similar state programs currently, at an estimated cost of $1 billion a year, says Karen Pollitz, a research professor at Georgetown University.

Discounts and free care in Medicare: The approximately 4 million Medicare beneficiaries who hit the so-called "doughnut hole" in the program's drug plan will get a $250 rebate this year. Next year, their cost of drugs in the coverage gap will go down by 50 percent. Preventive care, such as some types of cancer screening, will be free of co-payments or deductibles starting in 2010.

Coverage of kids: Parents will be allowed to keep their children on their health insurance plan until age 26, unless the child is eligible for coverage through a job. Insurance plans cannot exclude pre-existing medical conditions from coverage for children under age 19, although insurers could still reject those children outright for coverage in the individual market until 2014.

Tax credits for businesses: Businesses with fewer than 25 employees and average wages of less than $50,000 could qualify for a tax credit of up to 35 percent of the cost of their premiums.

Changes to insurance: All existing insurance plans will be barred from imposing lifetime caps on coverage. Restrictions will also be placed on annual limits on coverage. Insurers can no longer cancel insurance retroactively for things other than outright fraud.

Government oversight: Insurers must report how much they spend on medical care versus administrative costs, a step that later will be followed by tighter government review of premium increases.

Want to convince me the Bill shouldn't have passed. That there's a better way? Fine. Perhaps we could start from a place that doesn't refuse cover because they consider rape a pre-existing condition.

Be well.