SOPA and PIPA are two different things.

PROTECT IP / SOPA Breaks The Internet from Fight for the Future on Vimeo.

Do you steal music off the internet? Be honest.

I used to, but then in the summer of 2011 I decided to download Windows Vista and reformatted my computer. I also forgot to back up any files. I lost my entire music collection, slowly stolen off the internet since grade 7.

If you regularly consume media over the internet, chances are you visit websites that host copy-write infringing material. What does this mean? When someone creates something original they have the right to legally protect the their work. Copy-right or "the right to copy", gives the creator control over their work in many forms:

                      -They have the right to control any reproductions of their work

-They have the right to be credited for their work

                                   -They have the right to control who financially benefits from their work

The internet, in it's current form, has so much copy-righted material everywhere. In most cases without the owner's permission. YouTube, Wikipedia, Ebay, Craiglist, etc, all feature content the original owners never granted permission to use. This blog features lots of content I post without asking the owner's permission.
        The Stop Online Piracy Act gives the rightful owner's of intellectual property more power to go after people infringing on their content. It is a complicated bill with lots of implications. Check out the edu-cartoon above; it can explain techno jargon better than myself.

        Blogger, Jason Harvey of Reddit.com, gives a thorough explanation of the Stop Online Piracy Act, and the Protect IP Act here: A technical examination of SOPA and PROTECT IP

slippery slope

sad reality of war

Why is something popular referred to as "viral"? As in, "this internet video has gone viral".
I think it has something to do with the infectious nature of a virus. "Infectious" also confers a negative spread; a spread of sickness and sadness. Rebecca Black's video, "Friday" has all of those characteristics. But I digress...


Recently, a video of US Marines urinating on Afghan corpses has gone "viral". I have not seen the video, as I cannot bring myself to watch it. An event like this has serious repercussions for all stakeholders in the ambiguous War on Terror. The American effort to win the hearts-and-minds of Afghans will suffer. The reputation of the American military will suffer. More people may take up arms against the United States. The international community will shame the war effort because this is a disturbing reality brought into the public's homes via computer screen.


Unlike the Gulf war, which was highly televised, the Afghan and Iraq campaigns have remained sheltered from the public's view. Time magazine recently did a piece on the growing separation between the military and the public, and this video is a jarring reality of being conscious about the war.

I found a lot of the press to shame the soldiers in the video. No doubt, their actions are despicable. But how can I begin to comprehend the circumstances that led to that video? War takes a toll on the mind, and people of differing mental fortitude go off to fight war. I don't mean to apologize for the soldiers in the video, but rather apologize for the circumstances in which their actions were committed. I assume watching scores of people die from bombs and bullets could rework the reality of the brain; make someone crazy. The reality of war could make urinating on your supposed enemy commonplace. This is not the first time something like this has happened. Who am I too say? I can't. We need to rethink how we fight these wars.


National Post - 
Video of Marines urinating on dead insurgents won’t harm peace talks: Taliban


Globe and Mail -
Video of U.S. Marines urinating on Taliban dead causes uproar

republican primary

Triptych of Haywain by Hieronymus Bosch. It's a crazy painting! The tadpole mouse is making a getaway!

Often, it is the loudest voices that carry the day. Popular media can have a way of sensationalizing the loudest voices, however extreme they might be, while the best voices become marginalized. I am referring to America's Republican Primaries, currently taking place. GOP candidates campaign to represent the Republican Party against Obama in November; if you didn't think the GOP was a breeding ground for unqualified leaders during the 2008 election (Palin), you will after the Republican Primaries (Cain, Bachmann, Santorum, Perry, etc).

The "media" (ambiguous, I know), presents us with politically themed stories, that have little bearing on the actual issues at hand. For example: Herman Cain's sexual harassment accusations. Why did this dominate news headlines for as long as it did? Our infatuation with reading about Cain's sordid personal life is pathetic. Headlines were made when he said pizzas with few toppings are for sissy's... I'll admit it, I ate it up. I had a great time laughing about Herman and all his nonsensical junk. The same thing happened with Sarah Palin in 2008. The media needs to do its job and clear its palate of these candidates who clearly do not stand a chance. The void created by the lack of non-pertinent distractions could be filled with stories that actually inform (I'm looking at you FOX NEWS). We need to do our job, and not give the soap-operaesque tabloids credence. 

We have some similar political personas in Canada, although not as extreme. The closest thing Canadians have to the political carnival characters from the States, is Don Cherry. Unfortunately, he garners more respect and attention than many of our top ranking public servants. And he doesn't even practice politics. We laughed along when Peter Kent apparently didn't know what ozone was, but unfortunately that is a much more serious issue than Herman Cain's mistress(es). Peter Kent's issue is  actually rather sad, and not something to laugh about.

It's not about a left-versus-right thing either. I would certainly vote for some of the Republican contenders over the Democrat's Obama. It is about intellectual honesty, and separating fact from drivel.
I encourage you to look into the United States' electoral race, starting with the Primaries right now. The changes taking place across the border are inevitably going to affect Canadians, and we should do our part to get informed and advocate for the change we want.

As of writing this, Cain and Bachmann have dropped out. Below I have posted a video from Rick Perry... scary I know. I have also posted a rebuttal I found on youtube, which sums up my feelings more eloquently than I can express.

i still appreciate Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, even though it presented negative enjoyment

I did not enjoy reading The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. I give it a thumbs-down. Also, doesn't the hand on the cover look vaguely erotic?

I recently read The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy. It chronicles a man who escapes the Earth's destruction, and his interstellar voyage. The book forced me to suspended my disbelief to uncomfortable levels, and I had a hard time identifying with the characters (aliens).

This book is a metaphor for political preference. Even though The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy  presented absolutely no value to me whatsoever, I still need to recognize a lot of people absolutely adore this book. 14 million copies have been sold, since it was first published in 1979. Do I begrudge the people that purchased this book? No.

This is a message to people that ardently take a political side, needlessly vilify the opposition, and fail to fully inform themselves. We all know people like this; on occasion we are all guilty of this. We need to constantly remind ourselves that both sides of the political spectrum are needed for healthy democracy and debate.

another chapter in city politics draws to a close

photo courtesy of Dodge Baena

Winter is oddly depressing and comforting. It is the season of emotional senescence, whereby we retreat inside and reflect on the year that passed. At least it is that way for me; I don't ski or snowboard. Snow irritates my ankles.

The winter break has provided me all the free time university siphons away. My casual rejection of being outside in the winter has loosened, since I have discovered pleasurable free outdoor activities, like the Nicholas Lambden rink in front of City Hall.

This rink (hopefully), represents a closing chapter in the City of Guelph, as is naturally expected in the season of Winter. The implementation and construction of the new rink, City Hall building, and Market Square space has been a point of contention between the public, downtown merchants, and city hall, for several years. Anyone who frequents downtown can attest, Carden St. has been in a perpetual state of construction every summer for the past several years. The construction was blamed for driving away customers and putting merchants on the verge of bankruptcy. The situation between merchants and the city was poorly handled; at one point the city threatened to sue business owners over a defamatory comparison made between city councillors and the three stooges.  . 

The negative impacts of Carden's (re)construction have been used as fodder by the anti-Farbridge groups to support the claim that the City of Guelph is anti- business, as was mentioned in a leaked report earlier this year. To truly determine if this is correct, I feel more time is needed to see the change in business on Carden St.

I understand all the arguments against the reconstruction of Carden, but after visiting I find it harder to convince myself it was a bad idea. It's a beautiful space, and attracts a diverse selection of Guelphites. It is endearing to see new Canadians strapping on skates and embracing a Canadian pastime. It is endearing to see wobbly-footed children coached by their grandparents. It is endearing to see young couples hold hands and weave their way around the ice.

Was the cost/benefit of the new space worth it? I don't know, but I am definitely going to be spending more time in that space, and hopefully I will buy a thing or two from the shops there (Hempire, anyone?).

Q: who should be the lamp lighter? A: taxpayers

The City of Guelph is run like a conglomeration of companies all working to provide city services in exchange for tax dollars. If you haven't heard, the city of Guelph is a little short on cash lately and is looking for new ways to fund some capitol projects.

Council has the bright idea to sell off the city's street lights to Guelph Hydro, the electrical provider. Currently, the street lights are owned by the citizens of Guelph, and their upkeep is paid for by tax dollars.  Under the proposed system, the City of Guelph would sell the lights which would free up approximately $10 million dollars in the operating budget. Guelph Hydro would control the street lights, and the cost of maintenance would be included in the electrical bills. So what seems to be the problem?

The City of Guelph owns Guelph Hydro. No new money is actually being created, and tax payers are still forced to bear burden of new capitol projects. This is a complex legal shell game used by city hall to move funds around.

Selling off the street lights would give city hall a big bag of money to put towards things like a new downtown library, the Wilson Street Parkade, a skatepark (maybe), and a south end recreation centre (not likely). In the future, I imagine municipalities selling off most of their infrastructure and utilities to private enterprises (I don't necessarily agree with this, Im just continuing with the trend). This street light issue is the continuation of municipalities slowly selling themselves off to private firms; its a drop in the ocean given the larger context. Toronto sold off its street lights in 2005 for $60 million dollars... Toronto will now pay over $420 million over the next 30 years to rent them back. It doesn't seem wise to echo the same actions taken by Toronto, in Guelph.