<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Arnie meet Toby</title>
	<atom:link href="http://cultureby.com/2004/07/arnie_meet_toby.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://cultureby.com/2004/07/arnie_meet_toby.html</link>
	<description>This Blog Sits At the Intersection of Anthropology and Economics</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 May 2012 21:10:32 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Pavel Mao</title>
		<link>http://cultureby.com/2004/07/arnie_meet_toby.html/comment-page-1#comment-7913</link>
		<dc:creator>Pavel Mao</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Nov 2004 19:19:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://localhost/wp_culture/?p=1175#comment-7913</guid>
		<description>The continuing epidemic of obesity in America could wipe out many of the recent improvements in health within the next 20 years, according to a new U.S. analysis released on Tuesday.
If Americans continue to get fatter at current rates, by 2020 about one in five health-care dollars spent on people aged 50 to 69 could be due to obesity -- 50 percent more than now, the Rand Corporation study found.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The continuing epidemic of obesity in America could wipe out many of the recent improvements in health within the next 20 years, according to a new U.S. analysis released on Tuesday.</p>
<p>If Americans continue to get fatter at current rates, by 2020 about one in five health-care dollars spent on people aged 50 to 69 could be due to obesity &#8212; 50 percent more than now, the Rand Corporation study found.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Grant</title>
		<link>http://cultureby.com/2004/07/arnie_meet_toby.html/comment-page-1#comment-7912</link>
		<dc:creator>Grant</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Jul 2004 20:49:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://localhost/wp_culture/?p=1175#comment-7912</guid>
		<description>Thank you, Steve.  Splendid, as always.  But does this trend mark a &quot;feminization.&quot;  I think it might merely open up the cultural category &quot;male&quot; and define it with sufficient range that a guy in a flashy costume can have emotions as well as the ability to kick everybody&#039;s ass.  And it seems to me that Will Smith and the early Wesley Snipes had precisely this ability to travel a broader gender register.  (The later Wesley went for something more monolithic and look where it got him!)  In fact, I believe that Will Smith plays the gender registrer with something like the skill and versatility with which he plays the speech register.  Men in Black has him &quot;code-shifting&quot; from Standard received American English to urban street so subtlety that we never say &quot;hey, what just happened there?&quot;  The gendered and the linguistic shifting give him an ability to engage us intellectually and emotionally in any given action adventure AND it allows him to play other, broader parts.  Poor Diesel and The Rock!  These guys can&#039;t even sustain the range needed to sustain a genre specific picture, let alone a career.  Thoughts only.  Thanks for the nuanced view of Spider Man.  Was it everyone knows more about super heroes than me.  Plainly, I read the wrong comic books.  No, that&#039;s not it.  As I recall, my mother kept encouraging me to &quot;go play in the traffic.&quot;  Thanks, Grant
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thank you, Steve.  Splendid, as always.  But does this trend mark a &#8220;feminization.&#8221;  I think it might merely open up the cultural category &#8220;male&#8221; and define it with sufficient range that a guy in a flashy costume can have emotions as well as the ability to kick everybody&#8217;s ass.  And it seems to me that Will Smith and the early Wesley Snipes had precisely this ability to travel a broader gender register.  (The later Wesley went for something more monolithic and look where it got him!)  In fact, I believe that Will Smith plays the gender registrer with something like the skill and versatility with which he plays the speech register.  Men in Black has him &#8220;code-shifting&#8221; from Standard received American English to urban street so subtlety that we never say &#8220;hey, what just happened there?&#8221;  The gendered and the linguistic shifting give him an ability to engage us intellectually and emotionally in any given action adventure AND it allows him to play other, broader parts.  Poor Diesel and The Rock!  These guys can&#8217;t even sustain the range needed to sustain a genre specific picture, let alone a career.  Thoughts only.  Thanks for the nuanced view of Spider Man.  Was it everyone knows more about super heroes than me.  Plainly, I read the wrong comic books.  No, that&#8217;s not it.  As I recall, my mother kept encouraging me to &#8220;go play in the traffic.&#8221;  Thanks, Grant</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: steve</title>
		<link>http://cultureby.com/2004/07/arnie_meet_toby.html/comment-page-1#comment-7911</link>
		<dc:creator>steve</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Jul 2004 20:17:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://localhost/wp_culture/?p=1175#comment-7911</guid>
		<description>The NY Times keeps writing this story and keeps ignoring Will Smith and Wesley Snipes and even Samuel Jackson--three action heroes who are pretty much in the all-American butt-kicking tradition but aren&#039;t white. Vin Diesel and The Rock, racially ambiguous, also fit the traditional macho mold.  What is happening is that the action genre has expanded so much (partly due to globalization of the market, because action travels internationally better than other genres), that there is room for guys like Matt Damon to get action roles.
One geeky note: While Kevin is absolutely correct about the authenticity of a skinny Spider-Man, Tobey MacGuire&#039;s quiet, wistful approach to Peter Parker seems to me a bit of a departure from the comics. Lee&#039;s Peter Parker was whip-smart, wise-cracking, quick on the uptake, pretty aggressive, and prone more to bitterness than depression in the face of his conundrum. He had as much of a temper as a normal person, and his circumstances caused it to surface with some frequency (although he had considerable respect for his elders). Black humor was a primary coping mechanism.
MacGuire&#039;s version is more &quot;sensitive&quot;--his Peter Parker has the superhuman ability to melt the hearts of women with his air of vulnerability and unalloyed goodness. He comes off as more suffering and saintly than Lee&#039;s original. It&#039;s a great interpretation of the character, but I think it does support your original point about the feminization of the action hero a bit more than Kevin&#039;s comment might imply.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The NY Times keeps writing this story and keeps ignoring Will Smith and Wesley Snipes and even Samuel Jackson&#8211;three action heroes who are pretty much in the all-American butt-kicking tradition but aren&#8217;t white. Vin Diesel and The Rock, racially ambiguous, also fit the traditional macho mold.  What is happening is that the action genre has expanded so much (partly due to globalization of the market, because action travels internationally better than other genres), that there is room for guys like Matt Damon to get action roles.</p>
<p>One geeky note: While Kevin is absolutely correct about the authenticity of a skinny Spider-Man, Tobey MacGuire&#8217;s quiet, wistful approach to Peter Parker seems to me a bit of a departure from the comics. Lee&#8217;s Peter Parker was whip-smart, wise-cracking, quick on the uptake, pretty aggressive, and prone more to bitterness than depression in the face of his conundrum. He had as much of a temper as a normal person, and his circumstances caused it to surface with some frequency (although he had considerable respect for his elders). Black humor was a primary coping mechanism.</p>
<p>MacGuire&#8217;s version is more &#8220;sensitive&#8221;&#8211;his Peter Parker has the superhuman ability to melt the hearts of women with his air of vulnerability and unalloyed goodness. He comes off as more suffering and saintly than Lee&#8217;s original. It&#8217;s a great interpretation of the character, but I think it does support your original point about the feminization of the action hero a bit more than Kevin&#8217;s comment might imply.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Grant</title>
		<link>http://cultureby.com/2004/07/arnie_meet_toby.html/comment-page-1#comment-7910</link>
		<dc:creator>Grant</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Jul 2004 21:56:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://localhost/wp_culture/?p=1175#comment-7910</guid>
		<description>Wonderfully said, again.  And not to worry.  I teach in an Art History department but I am a lowly anthropologist.
Yes, I think the willingness of actors to transform themselves for the role (DeNiro and Theron) shows not so much a selflessness as an artist interest in going where the role takes them AND the larger motive for much of our transformations, curiosity.  What WOULD it be like that to be like that.  And what they can&#039;t manage on their own is enhanced, as Gabrielle points out, by CGI.  Now the audience member has the possibility of identification strengthened (always tough in Arnie&#039;s case) and our own transformational opportunities multiplied.  And, yes, very good point on Jackson.  Who would have guessed there was an actor with the transformational range to play both the Wolverine and Peter Allen...or that we as auditors would not put our foot down and say, &quot;one or the other, buddy.  Not both.&quot;  Thanks again, Grant
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wonderfully said, again.  And not to worry.  I teach in an Art History department but I am a lowly anthropologist.</p>
<p>Yes, I think the willingness of actors to transform themselves for the role (DeNiro and Theron) shows not so much a selflessness as an artist interest in going where the role takes them AND the larger motive for much of our transformations, curiosity.  What WOULD it be like that to be like that.  And what they can&#8217;t manage on their own is enhanced, as Gabrielle points out, by CGI.  Now the audience member has the possibility of identification strengthened (always tough in Arnie&#8217;s case) and our own transformational opportunities multiplied.  And, yes, very good point on Jackson.  Who would have guessed there was an actor with the transformational range to play both the Wolverine and Peter Allen&#8230;or that we as auditors would not put our foot down and say, &#8220;one or the other, buddy.  Not both.&#8221;  Thanks again, Grant</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kevin Robinson</title>
		<link>http://cultureby.com/2004/07/arnie_meet_toby.html/comment-page-1#comment-7909</link>
		<dc:creator>Kevin Robinson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Jul 2004 21:51:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://localhost/wp_culture/?p=1175#comment-7909</guid>
		<description>Grant:
Thanks for the reply.  imagine my chagrin when I realized that I was giving a (COMICS) a comics art history lesson to an art history prof! I can barely tell my Botticelli from my vermicelli.  But I do know what Spider-Man should look like.  When John Romita was acting as art director at Marvel, he often had to rein in artists who drew Spidey on too-heroic proportions, and make corrections.
&quot;SPURGEON: Was every change you made directly from Stan, or had you internalized what Stan wanted and made changes yourself on that basis?
ROMITA: Every single one from Stan. I never changed -- I&#039;ll rescind that. I changed a Spider-Man figure on an artist I won&#039;t mention. [Laughter.] Because he had the arms and legs so long it was ludicrous. I had to cut a half inch out of each arm and each leg.
SPURGEON: Was that Gil Kane?
ROMITA: No. But I will tell you that yes, Gil Kane used to make Spider-Man six foot five. My answer to that was that I would make his head bigger, so he would look five foot ten. That I did. But that was not a knock at his artwork. That was a knock at his characterization.&quot;
John Romita Interviewed by Tom Spurgeon, excerpted from The Comics Journal
#252 found @ http://www.tcj.com/252/i_romita.html
As for action heroes in the films, I&#039;m no expert, but there seems to have developed a trend, over time, of replacing muscle-men who had been taught to &quot;act&quot; with actors who adopt their physique to a role.  &quot;Buster&quot; Crabbe and Johnny Weismuller are examples of the first, as was Steve (Hercules) Reeves. When it came time to cast &lt;i&gt;Superman&lt;/i&gt; in the late 1970&#039;s, Richard Donner and the Salkinds chose a little known stage actor with one film under his belt who looked the part of Clark Kent, and put him through weight training to fit the tights.  By 1980&#039;s &lt;i&gt;Raging Bull&lt;/i&gt;, Robert DeNiro was willing to train up to a standard that made him believable as Jake LaMotta at his championship best, and to also gain considerable as the overweight retired version.  Advances in personal training have become so commonplace that even an actress who depends on her beauty the way Charlize Theron does will put on weight and muscle for a part, such as her Oscar-winning turn in &lt;i&gt;Monster.&lt;/i&gt;  She took the weight off and looks as gorgeous as ever.  Sly Stallone fattened up for &lt;i&gt;Cop Land&lt;/i&gt;, then hit the gym after it wrapped.  Even Maguire slimmed down for &lt;i&gt;Seabiscuit&lt;/i&gt; and shaped up for &lt;i&gt;Spiderm-Man 2&lt;/i&gt;.
ISTM that directors would sooner find an actor they trust can pull off a role with some substance, and expect them to show up for shooting looking the part. There is still a place for the hunky looking actor, but it helps if they have some onscreen spark.  The &quot;next Arnold&quot; is generally thought to be
Dwayne &quot;The Rock&quot; Johnson, WWE wrestling great and star of &lt;i&gt;The Scorpion King&lt;/i&gt; and of the &lt;i&gt;Walking Tall&lt;/i&gt; remake.
I agree with Gabrielle about the HK and CGI effects.  But we are indeed living in a new world, where Hugh Jaclman can play the built, near-homicidal Canucklehead, Wolverine, then win a Tony by playing Peter Allen!
Kevin
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Grant:</p>
<p>Thanks for the reply.  imagine my chagrin when I realized that I was giving a (COMICS) a comics art history lesson to an art history prof! I can barely tell my Botticelli from my vermicelli.  But I do know what Spider-Man should look like.  When John Romita was acting as art director at Marvel, he often had to rein in artists who drew Spidey on too-heroic proportions, and make corrections.</p>
<p>&#8220;SPURGEON: Was every change you made directly from Stan, or had you internalized what Stan wanted and made changes yourself on that basis?</p>
<p>ROMITA: Every single one from Stan. I never changed &#8212; I&#8217;ll rescind that. I changed a Spider-Man figure on an artist I won&#8217;t mention. [Laughter.] Because he had the arms and legs so long it was ludicrous. I had to cut a half inch out of each arm and each leg.</p>
<p>SPURGEON: Was that Gil Kane?</p>
<p>ROMITA: No. But I will tell you that yes, Gil Kane used to make Spider-Man six foot five. My answer to that was that I would make his head bigger, so he would look five foot ten. That I did. But that was not a knock at his artwork. That was a knock at his characterization.&#8221;</p>
<p>John Romita Interviewed by Tom Spurgeon, excerpted from The Comics Journal<br />
#252 found @ <a href="http://www.tcj.com/252/i_romita.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.tcj.com/252/i_romita.html</a></p>
<p>As for action heroes in the films, I&#8217;m no expert, but there seems to have developed a trend, over time, of replacing muscle-men who had been taught to &#8220;act&#8221; with actors who adopt their physique to a role.  &#8220;Buster&#8221; Crabbe and Johnny Weismuller are examples of the first, as was Steve (Hercules) Reeves. When it came time to cast <i>Superman</i> in the late 1970&#8242;s, Richard Donner and the Salkinds chose a little known stage actor with one film under his belt who looked the part of Clark Kent, and put him through weight training to fit the tights.  By 1980&#8242;s <i>Raging Bull</i>, Robert DeNiro was willing to train up to a standard that made him believable as Jake LaMotta at his championship best, and to also gain considerable as the overweight retired version.  Advances in personal training have become so commonplace that even an actress who depends on her beauty the way Charlize Theron does will put on weight and muscle for a part, such as her Oscar-winning turn in <i>Monster.</i>  She took the weight off and looks as gorgeous as ever.  Sly Stallone fattened up for <i>Cop Land</i>, then hit the gym after it wrapped.  Even Maguire slimmed down for <i>Seabiscuit</i> and shaped up for <i>Spiderm-Man 2</i>.</p>
<p>ISTM that directors would sooner find an actor they trust can pull off a role with some substance, and expect them to show up for shooting looking the part. There is still a place for the hunky looking actor, but it helps if they have some onscreen spark.  The &#8220;next Arnold&#8221; is generally thought to be<br />
Dwayne &#8220;The Rock&#8221; Johnson, WWE wrestling great and star of <i>The Scorpion King</i> and of the <i>Walking Tall</i> remake.</p>
<p>I agree with Gabrielle about the HK and CGI effects.  But we are indeed living in a new world, where Hugh Jaclman can play the built, near-homicidal Canucklehead, Wolverine, then win a Tony by playing Peter Allen!</p>
<p>Kevin</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Grant</title>
		<link>http://cultureby.com/2004/07/arnie_meet_toby.html/comment-page-1#comment-7908</link>
		<dc:creator>Grant</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 04 Jul 2004 19:26:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://localhost/wp_culture/?p=1175#comment-7908</guid>
		<description>Kevin, I really hate it when the details get in the way.  But thank you.  I will take this as a mark of the maturation of popular culture.  Collectively, we know it down to the ground.  Thanks for a superb post.  And for spoiling the fun!  What, he says, somewhat plaintively, about the larger argument?  Best, Grant
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Kevin, I really hate it when the details get in the way.  But thank you.  I will take this as a mark of the maturation of popular culture.  Collectively, we know it down to the ground.  Thanks for a superb post.  And for spoiling the fun!  What, he says, somewhat plaintively, about the larger argument?  Best, Grant</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Grant</title>
		<link>http://cultureby.com/2004/07/arnie_meet_toby.html/comment-page-1#comment-7907</link>
		<dc:creator>Grant</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 04 Jul 2004 11:38:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://localhost/wp_culture/?p=1175#comment-7907</guid>
		<description>Gabrielle, Excellent.  The words Arnie and agility will never appear in the same sentence (again).  Thanks, Grant
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Gabrielle, Excellent.  The words Arnie and agility will never appear in the same sentence (again).  Thanks, Grant</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gabriel Rossman</title>
		<link>http://cultureby.com/2004/07/arnie_meet_toby.html/comment-page-1#comment-7906</link>
		<dc:creator>Gabriel Rossman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 04 Jul 2004 08:56:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://localhost/wp_culture/?p=1175#comment-7906</guid>
		<description>I would suggest a supply side factor: computer graphics. CGI, together with Hong Kong influences, has changed the action film&#039;s focus from power to agility. It is easier to imagine a little guy having the latter than the former.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I would suggest a supply side factor: computer graphics. CGI, together with Hong Kong influences, has changed the action film&#8217;s focus from power to agility. It is easier to imagine a little guy having the latter than the former.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kevin Robinson</title>
		<link>http://cultureby.com/2004/07/arnie_meet_toby.html/comment-page-1#comment-7905</link>
		<dc:creator>Kevin Robinson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 03 Jul 2004 19:26:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://localhost/wp_culture/?p=1175#comment-7905</guid>
		<description>I think that you are overthinking this.  One good reason to cast a Toby-type as Peter Parker/Spider-Man is because he does, in fact, have the body type that Steve Ditko drew in the first 38 issues of &lt;i&gt;The Amazing Spider-Man&lt;/i&gt;.  &quot;Puny&quot; Parker, as his high school nemesis, jock &quot;Flash&quot; Thompson liked to call him, was a spindly runt.  Now, when 4-F volunteer Steve Rogers took the super-soldier serum back before Pearl Harbor, to become Captain America, Jack Kirby drew him as transforming from a whisp of a guy into an Adonis.  Stan Lee and Ditko turned the cliche on its head, by having the newly super-powered wallcrawler maintain his wiry physique.  It fit the spider theme better, anyway.
Over the years, under the ministrations of later artists - notably love comics veteran John Romita, Sr., Pete fleshed out.  He graduated high school, and eventually college, ditched his no longer needed glasses, and was increasingly drawn, as many comics heroes are, as a clothed David out of Bridgman&#039;s &lt;i&gt;Anatomy&lt;/i&gt;.  Occasionally artists who were influenced by Ditko - Frank Miller, Todd McFarlane - would restore a lean, gangly look to Spidey, to the delight of older readers, if not the younger ones.
The truly amazing thing is that Hollywood did not demand that a Vin Diesel type be cast as Spider-Man, or someone any more bulked up than Ben Afflek as &lt;i&gt;Daredevil.&lt;/i&gt;
That Spider-Man seemed normal-sized to young readers brought up on the chiseled-from-stone depiction of Superman, as produced by Joe Shuster&#039;s successor, Wayne Boring, was certainly part of his appeal.  &lt;i&gt;Superman&lt;/i&gt; readers may have been more inclined to seek an ideal as a hero-figure, while fans of the webspinner identified more with a growing, changing adolescent.
(Just discovered this blog, due to a &lt;i&gt;Reason - Hit &amp; Run&lt;/i&gt; link.  Very interesting stuff.)
Kevin
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think that you are overthinking this.  One good reason to cast a Toby-type as Peter Parker/Spider-Man is because he does, in fact, have the body type that Steve Ditko drew in the first 38 issues of <i>The Amazing Spider-Man</i>.  &#8220;Puny&#8221; Parker, as his high school nemesis, jock &#8220;Flash&#8221; Thompson liked to call him, was a spindly runt.  Now, when 4-F volunteer Steve Rogers took the super-soldier serum back before Pearl Harbor, to become Captain America, Jack Kirby drew him as transforming from a whisp of a guy into an Adonis.  Stan Lee and Ditko turned the cliche on its head, by having the newly super-powered wallcrawler maintain his wiry physique.  It fit the spider theme better, anyway.</p>
<p>Over the years, under the ministrations of later artists &#8211; notably love comics veteran John Romita, Sr., Pete fleshed out.  He graduated high school, and eventually college, ditched his no longer needed glasses, and was increasingly drawn, as many comics heroes are, as a clothed David out of Bridgman&#8217;s <i>Anatomy</i>.  Occasionally artists who were influenced by Ditko &#8211; Frank Miller, Todd McFarlane &#8211; would restore a lean, gangly look to Spidey, to the delight of older readers, if not the younger ones.</p>
<p>The truly amazing thing is that Hollywood did not demand that a Vin Diesel type be cast as Spider-Man, or someone any more bulked up than Ben Afflek as <i>Daredevil.</i></p>
<p>That Spider-Man seemed normal-sized to young readers brought up on the chiseled-from-stone depiction of Superman, as produced by Joe Shuster&#8217;s successor, Wayne Boring, was certainly part of his appeal.  <i>Superman</i> readers may have been more inclined to seek an ideal as a hero-figure, while fans of the webspinner identified more with a growing, changing adolescent.</p>
<p>(Just discovered this blog, due to a <i>Reason &#8211; Hit &#038; Run</i> link.  Very interesting stuff.)</p>
<p>Kevin</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steve Portigal</title>
		<link>http://cultureby.com/2004/07/arnie_meet_toby.html/comment-page-1#comment-7904</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve Portigal</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 03 Jul 2004 15:45:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://localhost/wp_culture/?p=1175#comment-7904</guid>
		<description>Tyler must have taken some time away from receiving all the packages in order to post to this blog. Cool!
http://www.seanbonner.com/blog/archives/000612.php
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Tyler must have taken some time away from receiving all the packages in order to post to this blog. Cool!</p>
<p><a href="http://www.seanbonner.com/blog/archives/000612.php" rel="nofollow">http://www.seanbonner.com/blog/archives/000612.php</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

