What’s that? You don’t BELIEVE that I’ve seen the WHOLE internet? You want proof? Here’s your proof!

The beginning…

http://merkey.net/beginning/

and the end…

http://www.shibumi.org/eoti.htm

Maybe I’ll call Al Gore and have him get on creating some more of this internet thing.

At any rate, as many of you probably guessed (I’m using “many” loosely here since my guess is that the only person that reads this is my wife), I enjoy reading the bad reviews far more than the good ones – the responses to Tyler Perry’s Meet the Browns or Planet B-Boy (apparently a movie — seriously), you know, the good stuff that makes me not hate professional movie reviewers b/c I then realize that they have to sit through this crap.  And this obviously brings me to my principle film of focus: Drillbit Taylor.

Now, first of all, Drillbit Taylor should not be bad. It has some sort of Apatow association with it and it stars the usually enjoyable (when associated with Wes Anderson) Owen Wilson. But the fact of the matter is that this movie is, apparently, bad. Very, very bad. And dumb. Very, very, very dumb. In fact, from all the previews I’ve seen, I might even go so far as to call it horrible – a kids-consult-loser movie that Billy Bob Thorton apparently wouldn’t even touch since he’s made it at least three times before (Mr. Woodcock, School for Scoundrels, Bad News Bears).  But I’m digressing.  Anyway…as you probably guessed, I’ve been dying to see the particularly bad reviews for Drillbit (my fave, if you’re wondering, refers to the film as “shit” [http://www.filmthreat.com/index.php?section=reviews&Id=10863])

Ok, so, to my point here: while looking through all of these reviews (http://www.metacritic.com/film/titles/drillbittaylor), I happen to catch the MPAA explanation for why the movie is rated PG-13. Here it ’tis:

PG-13 for crude sexual references throughout, strong bullying, language, drug references and partial nudity

Now, I’m no prude, mind you, but I’m also no crazy let-the-kiddies-see-what-they-want guy either.  That being said, let’s go through these a bit:

“crude sexual references throughout” and “partial nudity” – ok, these make sense to me. Perhaps someone younger than 13 shouldn’t be exposed to this sorta stuff.

“language”  and “drug references” – hmm. Ok, a bit more debatable here in my opinion, but whatever. Let’s assume that these are on the fence of acceptability here for the under-13 crowd.

So, that leaves us with what?  That’s right, “strong bullying”!  Now, how in the hell have we gotten to the point that strong bullying is considered offensive. TO ANYONE! And furthermore, what the hell constitutes “strong” bullying? Like was a mom on the fence about letting her little boy see Drillbit Taylor and then eventually decided that, while she might be ok with “bullying,” bullying of the “strong” variety might be just too much to handle? I mean this is ridiculous, isn’t it? If the MPAA is going to mention “strong bullying” as a reason why a movie received the rating it did, then I basically want a full list of disclosures of unpleasant things that I might be exposed to in my films. Things like “extended shots of Andy McDowell’s nostrils” or “strong focus on emotionless thing called a Keeanu.” I’m serious. Seriously.

 [end rant]

To express my feelings regarding the death of my prized speakers, here’s a picture of a Japanese robot baby. I think it incorporates just the right amounts of sad, creepy, and scary that I’m feeling:

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2008/03/20/bayles.uk.rat.tiolet.itn

Senator Obama! Senator Clinton! Are you listening?

That’s right. I said it. The way he gallavants around the house with an air of determination, a purpose if you will.  And it always seems like he knows where he’s going too.  Maybe he’s headed over to the kitchen to find some tossed-aside scrap.  Maybe he’s on the path to go and smell the bathmat in the bathroom.  But the point is, it doesn’t really matter what he’s going to go do. It’s the confidence that he goes about doing it no matter how mundane the destination may be. That’s what I admire, his ability to never once say, “Man, what the hell was I going to do in here?” or “Jeeze, I thought I left my Kong here!” Nope. No, sir. He came to smell something in the carpet or to try and eat something that he shouldn’t. And I admire that. 

{holds food, not urine} 

Ok, so what’s the deal with all this recent toilet-news? Has CNN cracked some sort of deal with Kohler or FloMax or something?  Jeeze!

See the link below:

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2008/03/18/payne.fl.kid.lunchbox.bathroom.wesh

Ugh!  Just coming off the sick.  Anywho, I thought this was funny… http://www.theonion.com/content/news/wii_video_games_blamed_for_rise_in

 …and by the way, is anybody looking forward to Vegas 2 tomorrow?

 I might try and keep an ongoing tab of musicians killing folks.  Stay tuned….

 In a bit of irony that the AP seemed to miss: the reporting county sheriff’s name is Whipple. 

http://english.ndsu.edu/rrgsc_2008/

http://english.ndsu.edu/rrgsc_2008/call_for_papers/

Also, our abstract:

Personal Revelations: Exploring Feminine Disguises and Disclosures Across Literatures 

As many feminist critics have noted, authors have often struggled to

represent the complexities of feminine identity, particularly when faced with confining

literary, cultural, and gender stereotypes. In their examination of 18th and

19th century women’s texts, Sandra M. Gilbert and Susan Gubar have suggested

that women writers’ efforts to represent feminine identity become apparent

textually in frequent images of enclosure and escape. This panel expands on

that discussion by considering how the related themes of disguise and

disclosure are employed in literary texts that represent various aspects of

feminine identity and experience, including that of African American, Asian

American, and lesbian women. In exploring themes of disguise and disclosure

across genres and traditions, these five papers also take into account the

ways in which the interaction between authors, characters, and readers

creates a textual space within which the “revelation” of feminine identity

occurs. 

In “The Veil in Mary Shelley’s Valperga”, Samantha Mahjor examines the widespread presence of images and metaphors of feminine veiling within Shelley’s narrative. Shelley’s use of such imagery can be seen as an attempt to demystify the figure of The Veiled Lady and uncover the empty idealism in such fantasies of the cloaked female form.

In “Representation and (Re)framing in Catalina Cariaga’s ‘The Mercy,” Heather McNiel considers Cariaga’s narrative of her mother’s immigration to the United States as both a site of feminine disclosure and a (re)framing of Filipina American identity. Utilizing a poetics of juxtaposition and collage, Cariaga recontextualizes her mother’s historical account and generates new readings of the Filipina American experience.

Comparing Frances E.W. Harper’s novel Iola Leroy: Shadows Uplifted with her poems “The Slave Mother” and “A Double Standard” we uncover specific methods Harper uses to lift the veil of discrimination until nothing is left hidden. The “shadows uplifted” in both the novel and poems are the shadows concealing black female thought about white females.

In “Harriet Jacobs’ Engineered Audience,” Julie Prindle examines Jacobs’ Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl in terms of the relational space between author and reader. Playing with Reader Response critic Peter Rabinowitz’s concept of the authorial audience, Prindle considers how the constructed reader is a narrative tool by which Jacobs disguises and discloses her own identity.

In “Unlocking Gender Relationships in E.M. Forster’s Howards End,” Bethany Timmerman employs a psychoanalytic approach to examine Margaret Schlegel’s function as a female agent of disclosure, whose revelations empower other characters to attempt relationships that overcome the trappings of gender roles.

It should be fun!