Watch This Space: For those of you who have been hesitant to check out my blog, on the basis that the updates are so sporadic, I will let you know that it will now be updated daily, usually between 9 and 9:30 pm Pacific time on weekdays, with something.

Most likely Atkins rants.

Getting It Out Of Iraq: The big UN Report everybody's talking about, the one that talks about the missile parts and even entire buildings that were shipped out of Iraq as scrap metal is located here, if you want to read it for yourself.

The Doc On Writing: Over in the sff.net newsgroup for Writers of the Future (sff.writing.writersofthefuture), a debate rages on about whether the contest needs more judges, since the current judging will be tilted towards the sole coordinating judge's personal tastes.

This, to me, is a crack-up and sour grapes. It's a way for people who haven't written winning stories to rationalize that theirs was, in fact, good enough, but the judge's taste was simply different from theirs.

This, of course, is nonsense, the mantra of writers who have no interest in writing good stories, only in being told they're good writers. These writers do not seek to entertain, but seek validation. They join writer's groups not to see how to better reach an audience, but to find an audience to sing their praises.

There's a saying in Hollywood--write a killer script, and it would be filmed even if it was kept locked in the trunk of a car. I firmly believe this. I will be published regularly when I deserve to be, and not before. My job is to become that good.

So enough with the websites full of rejection letters for great works, as if that somehow means that my hackneyed, warmed-over, recycled Heinlein or Anne Tyler could possibly be great literature. Enough with the lists of "tricks" and "tips" and "insights into the editors mind." Those help with pitches, but not with individual stories.

Write a fantastic story, and no editor will be able to resist publishing it.

Period.

A Reason To Visit Seattle: Up until today, the only reason I had to visit Seattle was a giant omelette I saw on Food Network.

But no more.

Now, Seattle is home to the Science Fiction Museum and Hall of Fame.

Peruvian Fishermen Saved by Turtles: Am I the only one who pictured nunchuks when he saw this headline?

Metamorphosis: Okay, are you ready?

My friend Froggie asked me to comment on this post Neil Gaiman made about this article from the Guardian. And before I could, I knew I had to go listen to NPR's take, because Gaiman references Teller's answer, which I knew would turn out to be exactly the same as mine.

And I was right, about 1/3 of my answer. This is the third--exposing Houdini's version of the Metamorphosis will only make the modern version of the Metamorphosis (aka the Substitution Trunk) seem so much cooler. The awkwardness of the Houdini method doesn't explain the lightning-fast version of the trick done these days by magicians like the Pendragons--in fact, Houdini himself may just be scratching his head.

This is true of a lot of the Houdini-era magic. Speaking of Teller, he performs a version of Houdini's Needle Swallowing trick that transcends the old version completely. I've performed Needle Swallowing Houdini's way, and I have to plead ignorance as to Teller's method. Knowing what I know about Houdini's version just makes Teller's that much more impressive.

But what about the guys like me? What about those of us who can't do Metamorphosis at the speed of light, and who still do needle swallowing the old-fashioned way. Is it fair to us to have the secrets to magic hung before the world for all to see?

The argument offered by the lady in the NPR interview is ridiculous--she says the signs and warnings posted about their having exposed the trick (Do Not Enter If You Don't Want To Know!) are meant to "appease magicians." That's so funny it's ridiculous. She admits candidly at the start of the bit that non-magicians find the museum boring--signs promising "secrets revealed" and "tricks exposed" are undoubtedly meant to instill some hype.

What's not so obvious is that the reverse is true as well--arguing over secrets generates a lot of free publicity for magicians. One trick being exposed in one museum in one backwater town really isn't that big a deal--to be perfectly honest, the answer is probably sitting in the library down the street. It's definitely available with a quick google search, if people really want to know.

But by generating controversy, David Copperfield, The Society of American Magicians, and Penn and Teller all got some free air time here. And internet time, as more people talk about it, as evidenced by all the articles and blogs linked to above. The attention guys like the Masked Magician and people like him generate for magic helps the business a lot, resurrecting interest far more than it disillusions people.

And no competent magician is hurt.

Shortly following Houdini's death, a newspaper began running a series where, each night, they would expose different tricks the master had been famous for.

Magician lore says one magician pulled out the newspaper that night, showed the article to the audience, read them the secret, swore they would witness that his version didn't resort to such simple deception, and then proceeded to do it exactly as explained in the newspaper. None of the audience was the wiser.

The fact is, the small-time magician is benefited by the controversy that results from ranting about the exposing of secrets far more than he is hurt by the revealed secrets.

Sadly, many small time magicians do not understand this, and become genuinely angry when exposing like this happens. Part of this is because they think the ranting of guys like David Copperfield obligates them to feel the same--not understanding that guys like Copperfield are really jumping on the bus to get all the media attention they can out of the controversy. The small-town magicians would do well to learn from this.

Yes, I am actually suggesting that local magicians should raise a stink over magic books in the local library, so as to get a few lines of attention in the local paper, maybe a picture of the local S.A.M. chapter. And maybe even drive a few kids into the library to read some of those books and begin a lifetime love affair with the art.

Yeah, it's a little underhanded, but so what? That's magic.

I Shouldn't Joke: I joked a while back that since my first entry had been an honorable mention/semi-finalist, and my second entry had been a quarter finalist, that according to the resulting chart, this entry should be a "thanks for entering!"

Mathematics prevails.

But it does make sense. My placement in the contest has been directly proportional to the ambitiousness of the stories.

So this time, we're taking out all the stops.

Why I'm Not Libertarian: I like a lot of Libertarians. Penn Jillette, Dave Barry, Timothy Sandefur, Mark Skousen, Larry Elder--you get the point.

Also, when I take Liberatian-designed tests like this one, I show up on the border between centrist and libertarian.

But it seems like every time I hear an actual card-carrying Libertarian politician, I get the heebie-jeebies. No exception was listening to Michael Badnarik as a guest on Art Bell's Coast to Coast.

Bell's program is basically the radio equivalent of the Midnight Star or any of those supermarket tabloids with the six-headed aliens. Just being on this show undermines anybody's credibility--if somebody went on this show and told me to brush my teeth after every meal, I might start having second thoughts.

And then, their platform is a strange mix of radical ideas from both ends of the political spectrum, guaranteed to alienate everybody one way or the other (So the plan is to legalize drugs and prostitution and eliminate regulation of the health care and pharmaceuticals industry? The government should keep its nose out of every citizen's business, with no exceptions, but should be monitoring who's a citizen and whose a non-citizen, so as to boot out the non-citizens?).

The worst, though, is his violent opposition to the Iraq war. End of story, for me. As I've said before, I'm a one issue voter for the first time in my life, and that issue is the war on terror. If this guy's going to let the terrorists do what they want right along with everybody else--forget it. I'm scurrying back to the tent with the conservatives.

Why is this, though? Why is the Libertarian "leadership" so much less likeable than individual libertarians?

My guess is, and this is purely conjecture, that the reason why Libertarian politicians are such kooks is because wanting to be a "Libertarian Politician" is such a contradiction anyway. That's like wanting to be an agnostic priest or a unobtrusive cheerleader. When you've joined a political party based on the idea that you want the government to leave you alone, your last inclination is to want to make the government a part of your daily life by running for office.

On Reagan: Reagan is an almost mythological creature in my mind. He's somehow mixed up in my head with Hawk from GIJoe and Optimus Prime and all the other stuff from my childhood that exemplified greatness and nobility. I realize the idealized picture I hold in my mind is probably as distorted a caricature as the puppets made of him on the old Spitting Image and DC Follies TV shows, but it's still noble and great to me.

I realize that lots of kids who grew up with me probably have the opposite view. In their minds he represented the Emperor from Return of the Jedi, the wrinkled old man who wanted you to do bad stuff.

I don't think I knew too many of those kids. To all of us he was cool, he was funny, he was tough, he was everything we thought a president should be.

So now that I'm older, and I try to sort through all the data and books and articles that have been churned out about him, try to filter what's true and what's written by people whose glasses are tinted as red with blood as mine are by the rose, I find a noble, courageous, optimistic man, idealistic and caring when needed, but firm and unrelenting when necessary.

I'll miss him.

Still Kickin': Wow. Has it really been that long?

Ah, you probably didn't even miss me.