here’s the gist of what’s going on. sopa (stop online piracy act) works something like this:

the beating heart of sopa is the ability of intellectual property owners (read: movie studios and record labels) to effectively pull the plug on foreign sites against whom they have a copyright claim. if warner bros., for example, says that a site in italy is torrenting a copy of the dark knight, the studio could demand that google remove that site from its search results, that paypal no longer accept payments to or from that site, that ad services pull all ads and finances from it, and—most dangerously—that the site’s isp prevent people from even going there.

sopa in its original construction lets ip owners take these actions without a single court appearance or judicial sign-off. all it required was a single letter claiming a “good faith belief” that the target site has infringed on its content. once google or paypal or whoever received the quarantine notice, they would have five days to either abide or to challenge the claim in court. rights holders still have the power to request that kind of blockade, but in the most recent version of the bill the five day window has softened, and companies now would need the court’s permission.

this is an excerpt from a wonderful description found on gizmodo, a prominent tech website, and i strongly encourage you to read it in its entirety. the article intertwines a strong summary between paragraphs that reads:

sopa is an anti-piracy bill working its way through congress that would grant content creators extraordinary power over the internet which would go almost comedically unchecked, to the point of potentially creating an “internet blacklist” while exacting a huge cost from nearly every site you use daily and potentially disappearing your entire digital life while still managing to be both unnecessary and ineffective, but stands a shockingly good chance of passing unless we do something about it.

there are a few videos out there that also go on to explain how sopa/pipa will affect sites like youtube – the ultimate in user-created content – in such a way that the cute 6-year-old belting out a selena gomez jam in front of a webcam can be sued for copyright infringement. blogs, social networks, the lot of them, are all subject to the worst kind of abuse by the major players promoting this bill (hollywood, the music industry, etc.).

but it looks like, in light of everyone freaking out over not being able to do their research on wikipedia today, people have missed an important bit of news.

a few days ago, the white house released a statement (again, i strongly recommend you read this. it’s very, very important and i will not cover it nearly as extensively as the language found in the statement) that basically says that sopa/pipa, in it’s current form, will not receive the support of the president.

here’s the bottom line – if sopa passes in the house of reps, and it’s counterpart pipa passes in the senate, and their committee irons one consensus copy, it all likelihood obama will veto that sucker when it reaches his desk. vetoes aren’t the end all-be all, of course, but in most cases they are pretty damn ironclad.

extreme edits will have to be made, to both bills, for it to have any chance to see executive approval. in cases like these, regulation seems almost necessary. letting hollywood run wild on the internet, shutting down sites as they see fit, will never end well. the white house was adamant in conceding that piracy is real problem and they are open to taking measures to preventing it as best they can, but sopa/pipa is not the answer.

so for now, we’re safe. we’ll all be able to use wikipedia tomorrow. we’ll be able to post music to our blogs, upload youtube videos, and go ham on twitter. and while i felt like the reaction on social networks to sopa today was overblown, there is one thing for certain – congress has noticed. it’s impossible to deny it, and for that, i’m thankful for status update after status update. all i’m saying is don’t worry about a thing, cause every little thing is gonna be alright.

there are tons more, and if i remember to keep up with political cartoons i’ll throw a post like this on the web from time to time for your enjoyment.

believe it or not, films shown in theaters are the clearest picture you’re ever going to get, with the most accurate tone, brightness, clarity, and the accompanying sound that goes with it. in his article, scott (legendary director, known for alien, gladiator, black hawk down, american gangster, and countless other films) slams the digital media revolution, for you netflix instant queue streaming on your iphone doesn’t quite live up to the original specs of the film.

i have to say, i strongly agree. allow to preface with this: i’m no theatre-head. i rarely go to theaters to see movies and when i do i make it count. i save it for the big ones. most other films i catch at home, on my computer (dvd, streaming, etc.) and i enjoy them thoroughly. but watching the big movies by the big directors in a theatre is an absolute must, and i think so for one reasons mr. scott only alluded too.

aside from aspect ration and clarity and sound and all that technical mumbo jumbo, i firmly believe that, with the very best directors (ridley scott, stephen spielberg, martin scorcese, christopher nolan, among a select few others), every single thing you see in their films is there for a specific reason. these guys pay so much attention to detail and have so much creative control that i feel that every spec of dust you see floating around a set is there because they wanted you to see it.

if you buy a dvd, you get kinda close, but the lack of high definition brings the film down. with blu-ray, you get far closer (perhaps the closest we have, as mr. scott suggested in his article), but there’s still something quite not right (i blame this not on blu-ray but on the televisions they are viewed on a consumer preference. people tend to adjust their sets to display the most vivid [read: bright and colorful] picture possible, which is not what you get in a theatre, which has a dusty, darkened layer about it).

and spielberg doesn’t shoot his film with a blu-ray disc in the camera. he shoots with film. for a reason. it looks better and captures what he wants you to see far better than anything digital can so far achieve.

bottom line, the next time you see blockbuster, if you are excited about it in any way, see that sucker in a theatre. my big up and comer is the final chapter in christopher nolan’s batman trilogy - the dark knight rises. i would consider it an insult to mr. nolan if anyone saw that one for the first time outside the comfy tempur pedic seats of an upscale theatre, preferably imax. buy two bags of popcorn, extra butter, and prepare to be wowed.

to this i say “thank goodness” as i cross my fingers behind my back. i want to be excited, excited about the super bowl going to back to the tried and true halftime show with a legendary act blowing the stadium speakers out with classic rock. prince? awesome. paul mccartney? awesome. the who? not awesome, but pretty damn good. black eyed peas? awful.

last year’s super bowl halftime show was a complete fiasco. the black eyed peas are perhaps the only group who can ride a series of megahits to the top of the world and then totally blow the live performance of said hits on the world’s biggest stage.

i understood the decision. with the who, viewers felt detached. there was a bit of blow-back for the decision to play those guys. roger daltrey (lead singer) admitted to never really watching football, and he was supposed to take the band onstage during the biggest football game of the year and sell his enthusiasm to an enormous crowd? not happening. the younger viewing demographic was outraged. bridgestone (sponsors of the past 4 super bowl halftime shows) had to make a change. they did, and it backfired.

so here we are, approaching super bowl xlvi and the show is going back to what typically works – legendary music. madonna surely is legendary. she has one of the most recognizable, marketable names ever. some of her hits are considered the best of their genre, and she has managed over the years to always stay in the news.

but here’s why i cross my fingers – madonna isn’t a slam dunk. not like u2 or the rolling stones or prince or bruce springsteen. those guys have ultra hits that everyone knows and can sing along to. i don’t think madonna’s best quite stacks up with those guys’ best. she’s really going to have to nail the song selection and crush the onstage presence (she’s bringing cirque du solei so that should be a huge boost) to keep me interested.

maybe she’ll bring some awesome special guests to supplement the show, kinda like in 2001 when the super bowl broadcast this gem of a halftime show (n’sync, aerosmith, britney spears, mary j. blige, and nelly):

first things first, we’ve had so many comic book movies so often recently that the genre is getting diluted, and movies that should be awesome suck really hard. i can’t think of one time i’ve heard a good word about the green lantern. no joke. and that film earned that reputation. it was awful. it was too damn short, ryan reynolds forgot how to act, and the conflict in the film was presented so poorly that i forgot to care about what was happening. i get that dc comics is trying to make a splash but beyond superman, who the hell cares? apparently not anyone working on the green lantern.

i haven’t seen thor but i felt the same about this movie as i did going into lantern: should i even care? chris whatever his name is (joking, i know it’s hemsworth, just making a point) wasn’t anywhere near the draw i would’ve liked to have seen for that movie and i felt the people at marvel were trying to squeeze it in before captain america came out.

captain america was pretty good, i’ll admit, but i still felt like it was lacking a key element. there wasn’t a tremendous character stealing the show (see: tony stark in ironman and the joker in the the dark knight) or an epic storyline (see: the dark knight). marvel just made it to squeeze it in.

i know that marvel is doing these things in anticipation for next summers avengers and they need to introduce all of the characters. captain america is going to play a prominent role, as is thor. and we all know tony stark is going to rule that film. but let’s see some consistency! i’m referring to the unfortunate news that edward norton has a scheduling conflict or some shit and can’t reprise his role as the hulk in the upcoming epic. his replacement, mark ruffalo, is no slouch, but now i feel cheated into seeing the incredible hulk. what was the point? i know it needed to build into the avengers storyline but at the same time, i already saw the hulk on the big screen once before. it was terrible, but what else did i need to know about the character?

i have another consistency beef with the spider-man franchise as well. if i were stan lee, i’d feel 100% satisfied with the success of the original trilogy starring tobey maquire and company. i feel like sam raimi did a fantastic job directing the spider-man films, and aside from trying to cram too much into the last film, all three were huge blockbuster events. so pardon me if i’m a bit bored with the upcoming the amazing spider-man flick due in summer 2012 starring that scrawny dude from the social network and emma stone. it’s supposed to be more true to the comic books but i get the same feeling with this movie as i did with the hulk reboot: what more do i care to know? i’ve seen his origin story on screen once before, i don’t need to see it again.

with this movie coming out next summer, as well as the avengers and the dark knight rises, i’d be perfectly content if these were the last string of comic book movies to hit theatres. i’m sure the batman movie is going to be phenomenal and a major pick-me-up from films that are shaping up to be disappointments, so let’s go out on top hollywood, shall we?

for this who don’t watch espn or have a twitter, last week former penn state defensive coordinator jerry sandusky was charged with over 40 counts of sexual assault against minor male children.

sandusky founded the charity the second mile, for children who “need positive human contact in their lives.” some of the 7 victims met sandusky through this charity. he would often have children spend the night at his home, and eventually, began showering with the boys. after this is reported in 1998, district attorney ray gricar decides not to press criminal charges. sandusky would retire from penn state the next year, but was given complete access to the psu facilities, as well as an office.

in 2000, a janitorial worker, jim calhoun, saw sandusky engaging in a sexual act with a boy in the assistant coaches’ shower. calhoun’s colleagues feared that they may lose their jobs if they had spoken out about the incident. calhoun told his supervisor, who told him who he can report it to if he wants to. calhoun, his colleagues, and his supervisor did not tell anyone.

in 2002, the most disturbing incident occurred. what follows is from the grand jury report, graphic, and quite frankly hard to type. agraduate assistant (ga) walked into the locker-room saw lights on and the showers running. He then heard the a “rhythmic, slapping sound, which he believed to be sexual activity.” when the ga looked in the shower, he “saw a naked boy, victim 2, whose age he estimated to be 10 years old, with his hands up against the wall, being subjected to anal intercourse by a naked sandusky. The ga was shocked but noticed that both victim 2 and sandusky saw him. The ga left immediately, distraught.”

The ga, who was later revealed to be current psu wide receiver’s coach mike mcqueary, then called his dad. His dad then met with his son and instructed to report what he saw to joe paterno. mcqueary told paterno what he saw, and paterno set up a meeting with psu’s athletic director, tim curley. 10 days later, mcqueary met with curley and senior v.p. for finacne and business, gary schultz. mcqueary told the two that he saw sandusky fondling or doing something of sexual nature to a young boy.  The two decided to take sandusky’s keys and bar him from bringing children onto penn state grounds.

curley would testify that the ga did not report anal sex but merely “inappropriate conduct.” curley has been arraigned on charges of making false statements to the grand jury and failure to report possible child abuse.

schultz would testify that he was unsure of the details other than inappropriate conduct may have been made while the two were wrestling. scultz also was arraigned on charges of lying to the grand jury and failure to report the possible child abuse.

the most alarming thing about this entire situation- children were neglected.  no one called the police.  mcqueary saw this situation occuring, and rather than help the boy, he simply left.  he did not call the police.  he called his dad.  he told joe paterno.  joe paterno did not call the police.  he told his bosses.  they did not call the police.  in fact, they went one step further, choosing to neglect the safety of young, defenseless children, to protect their university and former coach.  sandusky was left free to continue doing these terrible crimes, when this entire situation could have been ended in 1998.  ray gricar could have pressed charges.  jim calhoun, his colleagues, or superior could have called the police.  mike mcqueary could have called the police.  joe paterno could have called the police.  tim curley could have called the police.  gary schultz could have called the police.  but none of them did.  jerry sandusky abused at least eight boys for over fifteen years.

joe paterno announced that he was going to retire at the end of the season. the penn state board of trustees determined that paterno was to be fired immediately. paterno decided he, one man, was bigger than the program and should be able to leave on his own terms. he lost that right the second he failed to call the police, and allowed a rapist to continue his actions.

penn state students gathered around the campus to protest the decision. this is disturbing. joe paterno is not in need of support nor comfort. he simply is no loneger coaching football. my advice to the rioters — read the 23 page grand jury report, and see who deserves support. the 8 victims of abuse, who had their entire lives ruined by a monster.

some are calling the treatment of joe paterno unfair, that the focus should be on sandusky. sandusky will have his focus when his trial begins on december 7th. for now, it is important that those who did nothing, are recognized and blamed for their neglect.

one person, who remains employed by psu, mike mcqueary, needs to be fired. he could have physically stopped sandusky, and did not.  rather he witnessed a boy get raped and decided the appropriate action was to call his father. the board of trustees did not fire him, nor give a reason for why not, other than paterno and president graham spanier were the focus of the meeting. if today’s events are any indication, mcqueary will not be employed at psu much longer.

the above men, and i use the term loosely, should all be punished for their neglectful actions. they failed to protect those in our society that are most vulnerable. they allowed a monster to continue his actions with no repercussions, and for that, they are cowards.

he credits the candidate for having the one thing politicians say they have but clearly don’t – consistency. ron paul has been noted for serving the public in political fashion for 40 years and is one of the few major players on the ballot that has the same views now as he did 5, 10, and even 40 years ago. stewart is also disgusted with the fact that ron paul has a legitimate constituency and tallies significant numbers of votes in straw polls. stewart’s own words? “ron paul has a constituency – like it or not, it’s there. how can you just ignore it? it makes no sense.”

this is not the first time that the daily show host has publicly defended the oft-ignored candidate – he basically spoke the very same words on his comedy central program. perhaps the strangest part of it all are the differences in opinion that jon stewart must share with the texas congressman.

we liberals typically toe the left side of the line, where ideals like pro-choice rights and social economic and healthcare theory reign supreme. cap-and-trade is good, out-of-control markets are bad, and global warming is real. so obviously i would have a problem or two with ron paul, and i should be able to assume jon stewart would too. but that’s not where the candidate struggles. he faces a challenge within his own party ranks (for the sake of seamless writing, i’m packaging ron paul as running as a republican candidate with the wacko neo-cons – “libertarian” and “independent” be damned) for some fringe ideas that hurt him in the eyes of staunch conservatives like opposing the iraq war and other more specific constitution-specific views that are followed to the letter of the document.

perhaps his biggest problem is his apparent disregard for big business. it’s not a matter of disliking big business or liking it, it’s a personal view that suggests that ron paul is genuinely concerned for the well being of the nation and is not at all in the game for personal gain; most of his campaign money comes from individuals, not from big groups with deep pockets. this seems totally rational, but other republican candidates with more money are enticed to keep that money by attacking ron paul for not supporting their donors. and the major news networks find themselves in play here as well, seeing as they must adhere to the demands of their largest target demographics.

it’s a vicious cycle that’s leaving ron paul under the radar and jon stewart, the rabid liberal political satirist looking to crack a joke on any conservative he can, is pissed off about it. makes for good news.

*disclaimer* i do not support ron paul, nor do i understand the full extent of his political ideology. most of what was said in this article is a direct result of a quickly skimming articles on ron paul and tossing in a bit of what i thought was said. feel free to correct me if i totally dropped the ball on some specific viewpoint of his.

mid-2009, ronaldo was bought from his long-time club manchester united for a record £80 million ($114,416,475.97 as of the currency exchange today) by real madrid, the pre-eminent spanish club and inked a monster contract. in order to finance the transfer, real madrid went to the spanish banking conglomerate bankia for a loan.

now, bankia is in hot water. in order to maintain solvency, the bank turned to the european central bank for a loan of their own. the ecb demanded guarantees for payment (read: collateral), and bankia responded by posting ronaldo and the brazilian star kaká, also a real madrid player whose transfer fee was financed by the company. (the collateral of the two players roughly adds up to £136 million.)

the munich daily, reporting the story, said this:

“could we see a situation in which the ecb seizes one of the players? in theory, it is possible. bankia would first have to become insolvent. thereafter, real would have to default on its loans, which are secured by advertising and television revenues. it goes without saying that real madrid is in debt to the tune of several million euros. however, in spain football clubs have a history of obtaining publicly funded bailouts — just like the country’s banks.”

this is quite a scenario. in a global economy that demands functioning by the largest banks nations have to offer, it is interesting that such a serious situation can be taken so – haphazardly. the odds that the bank enters delinquency on it’s loans are slim, as are the odds that the futbol club defaults on it’s own, but should we decipher such a sequence of events?

when the global econony fell apart in 2008, the culprit was risky investments backed up by virtually nothing. cdo’s (collateralized debt obligations) and other “bets” with useless collateral drove major banking and investment firms into the ground. is this the same thing? not by a long shot. but a couple athletes offered up as security from disolvency (when long-term assets fail to exceed long-term liabilities, which, in bankia’s case, would force them to break apart – back into the much smaller banks that came together just a year ago) is a complete joke.

we live in a world built around credit, and that’s just the reality of how the global economy works. but when the creditors can’t even scrounge up the liquid assets (read: cash on hand) to handle their own obligations, it becomes a problem. when they resort to silly solutions like this, it’s not only alarming, but appalling that banks don’t think we have half a brain to see what’s going on.

so the vonnegut memorial library decided to step up in such a time of indignance and provide a free copy of the classic novel to each student who was robbed of enjoying a treasured work and the freedom to choose.

a wonderful sci-fi tale, vonnegut uses slaughterhouse-5 as a filter for his experiences in the world war II during the bombing dresden. using time-travel and aliens and other imaginative tools, vonnegut provides a real vision of trauma, brutality, and our nation’s involvement in often unspoken history.

but the school board banned the book for creating ”false conceptions of american history and government or that teach principles contrary to biblical morality and truth.”

the professor responsible for this mess officially submitted this statement:

“this is a book that contains so much profane language, it would make a sailor blush with shame. the “f word” is plastered on almost every other page. the content ranges from naked men and women in cages together so that others can watch them having sex to god telling people that they better not mess with his loser, bum of a son, named jesus christ.”

the vonnegut library responded in kind:

“we have up to 150 books to share, thanks to the generosity of an anonymous donor. we think it’s important for everyone to have their first amendment rights. We’re not telling you to like the book… we just want you to read it and decide for yourself.”

this is perhaps the safest response, but they should have gone in guns blazing. the school board is vastly mistaken in their assessment of vonnegut’s novel. 5 is a stunning view of events that really happened. and of course, many of his scenes in this work of fiction are exaggerated, but all are used as a metaphor to show what happens when one’s entire foundation of life and religion break down in a few hours of non-stop bombing and carnage and destruction and death.

as for “teaching principles contrary to biblical morality and truth,” is that just a lawsuit waiting to happen? the separation of church and state in a classroom can get pretty specific, but i don’t think a school board has the right to ban a book on the basis of a religious claim. but that’s just me.

i think it’s best you do just as the vonnegut library has stated, to make up your own mind on the values of the novel. i highly recommend slaughterhouse-5 if you haven’t read it already.

go to jonathon starks website, and you’ll find an image of a starbucks card that mr. stark posted on the internet for anyone to use as part of a radical social/mobile currency experiment that is testing the limits of transferring money and buying goods with your phone.

you can download his card, take it to a starbucks, scan it, and you will get a free coffee. no strings attached.

stark came up with the idea almost randomly, wondering how crazy it would be if he could just post an image of his starbucks card to see if anyone else could use it. on july 7th, he added $30 to his card, posted an image of it for his friends to see, and within hours the virtual card was being used to buy coffee. stark posted another $50 and shared the image to more friends and asked them to take part in his little experiment, asking them if they liked buying things with their phone, etc.

on this second go-around though, instead of the $50 just being spent, people continuously added money of their own to the card.

over 2 days, over 3 thousand dollars had passed through the card. mr. stark said he’s most impressed by how many people continue to donate to the collective card. he had said he expecting something like a 10 to 1 ratio in terms of buyers and donors, but the ratio ended up being something more like 2 to 1, a very inspiring figure if you think about how often people tend to take advantage of free money.

don’t forget to grab the starbucks card app, available on both iphone and android devices.