I never realized how cool Aston Martins are until I saw Daniel Craig drive one off a cliff as James Bond in “Quantum of Solace.” I never realized how refreshing Coca-Cola is until I watched Simon Cowell sip a big red cup of it on “American Idol.” I never realized how charming American Airlines is until George Clooney handsomely sat aboard an AA aircraft in “Up in the Air.”

After seeing each of these things, my regular nightly dreamscape was replaced by a repeating plot of flying an AA plane into an Aston Martin while Daniel Craig and George Clooney shower me in Coca Cola.

Or so these companies would hope.

With the advent of TiVo and other ways to digitally record and watch TV shows and skip those doggone commercials, companies need a new way to convince us how awesome their stuff is and how we should totally buy it.

The answer: product placement.

Excuse me for a moment while I puke all over myself. OK I’m back.

What could be worse, what in the world could be worse, than films and television shows bending their plots to suit a corporate sponsor? Don’t answer that question. Of course there are worse things than this. This is a sick world we live in. I shall rephrase. What could be worse in this whole Thursday arts section than the idea of any of these works being infiltrated by advertising smut?

Take, for instance, the review in today’s paper of Cal Shakes’ “Much Ado About Nothing.” Look for it. Read it. Isn’t it a pretty review? Who wrote that again? Anyway.

Shakespeare of course wrote with outside pressures, making sure he didn’t tread on any Tudor toes in his histories. But imagine the following corporate-sponsored Shakespearean play: “Much Ado About Quinn’s High-Quality Quills.” This is a terrible example; I will abandon it immediately.

All right, it’s open mind time. God I hate this part.

It’s possible, I admit, for product placement to add to a piece of art. This can be seen in comedies for purposes of irony. Tina Fey’s “30 Rock” is littered with brands. Alec Baldwin once sang an ode onscreen to the McFlurry. Fey later claimed that no cash exchanged hands for the McFlurry bit – it was product placement done to benefit the plot.

And who could forget Stephen Colbert’s Doritos Spicy Sweet Pennsylvania primary coverage from Chili-Delphia. I know I couldn’t; it was too delicious. Colbert grasped the reins of product placement and tasted the spicy sweet monetary awards. He also earned some chuckles in the process. Success.

But can product placement succeed beyond the accommodatingly ironic sphere of comedy?

Jason Reitman’s 2009 “Up in the Air” suggests so. Rather than inventing a fictional airline to fly George Clooney around his loveless world, Reitman instead struck a deal with American Airlines and Hilton Hotels to accommodate his crew throughout filming in return for Clooney making their brands look sexy in an old-guy kind of way.

Money saved. But the embedded advertisement has perks beyond mere financial savvy. “Up in the Air” scores major believability points for its incorporation of real-world brands. Which is the point of a brand – to make us feel comfortable. We know exactly what we’re getting with a well-known brand, and when that familiarity translates to film, an audience is given an extra boost toward relating to fictitious characters and their experiences.

There, I said it. The incorporation of corporate sponsors can help a film. I feel dirty. Someone call up Craig and Clooney to wash me in Diet Coke.

At first, director Zack Snyder, know for his R-rated features “Dawn of the Dead,” “300” and “Watchmen,” seems to be an odd choice for an animated children’s tale.

But after the film’s opening moments, with owls flying gracefully as the speed ramps up and slows down, perfectly in sync with the music and 3-D accompaniment, one can see the appeal the project had.

At its base, “Legend of the Guardians” is “Star Wars” distilled to 90 minutes and stuffed with high-fantasy pitting good vs. evil on both epic and intimate scales. Based on a popular book series, the film focuses on two brother owls: the wide-eyed Soren and the impressionable Kludd. After some establishing moments where we learn about the brothers’ dynamic, the pair become wrapped up in a conflict between the evil “Pure Ones” and the mythic “Guardians” in a struggle for control of the owl-world.

As “Guardians” rushes through the usual hero’s journey, there are no calm moments between the storm that are used to great effect in “Lord of the Rings” or “Bravehart.”  Each beat leads immediately to the next.

While this does make for a brisk narrative going a mile a minute, at times one wishes for a calm moment so we older viewers can catch our breath. Children, with their wandering attention spans and innate familiarity with the story, will be satisfied. Adults will have a harder time bridging the gap. Because of this, the film is never able to completely engage the adult mind, keeping it at the level of serviceable entertainment, but nothing to write home about.

What is incredible, though, are the visuals. The pleasure Snyder takes in the freedom animation lends him is palatable from the movie’s many action sequences and flight scenes. The camera zooms through action in complex ways with constant, perfectly timed speed ramps.

Kid’s film or not, Snyder injects the owl combat with edge and severity not usually seen in children’s film. The animation lends itself to the stylized violence Snyder enjoys, making it oddly thrilling entertainment. The animation is breathtaking, and between the gorgeous virtual photography and the rather sophisticated use of camera technique, this is one of the best-looking films of the year.

The 3-D techniques employed here are well worth the surcharge on the ticket price, matching the heights of “How to Train Your Dragon” and “Avatar.” There’s something inherently appealing about 3-D flight. It is simply exhilarating. While the flight in “Dragon” was more emotionally charged, the kinetic energy in “Guardians” is well worth seeing.

At best, “Legend of the Guardians” is going to be a gateway drug of sorts for small children that leads to fantasy epics like “Star Wars,” “Last Airbender” and “Lord of the Rings.” I can imagine a decade from now when young geeks and nerds cite “Guardians” as their first nerdy, earth-shattering experience. You can’t help but love it for that.

Grade: B

Imagine a world where nothing is secret and everything you do on the Internet is monitored, kept under surveillance and stored as data. Remember that Skype chat you had last week? Or how about that Facebook conversation you had yesterday? Yes, it’s a chilling idea.

Federal law enforcement and national security officials want Congress to implement new “wiretap” regulations that would be able to intervene and reveal concealed messages. This order would apply to communication services such as e-mail channels like Blackberry, software that allows “peer to peer” messaging like Skype and social networks such as Facebook.

According to Monday’s report by The New York Times, the government’s reasoning is that “their ability to wiretap criminal and terrorism suspects is ‘going dark’ as people increasingly communicate online instead of by telephone.” The Obama administration has endorsed this and is planning to send in the bill to lawmakers next year.

Google, Microsoft, Yahoo and Facebook refused to discuss this major privacy change.

“Only Facebook would comment, if only generally, saying in a statement: ‘We will examine any proposal when and if it materializes but we can’t comment on something we haven’t seen. Generally, it’s our policy to only comply with valid, legal requests for data,’” the Times reported.

Trying to make Internet traffic function similarly to the telephone, the government wants to guarantee access to our use of the Internet when the need arises. Although its intention to prevent another terrorist attack is favorable, this regulation  violates both our privacy and free speech. This is surely not the Internet we envisioned.

It seems that when the government grows, an individual’s privacy becomes less of a concern. How much is too much power for the government? Does the government have our best interest and can they be trusted with access to our e-mail, conversations and data?

We understand the government needs its tools to carry out its duties. But this does not mean that our privacy should be sacrificed to make law enforcement’s and national security agencies job easier.

Type Lindsay Lohan’s name into a Google search and you’ll find your request yielding more than 160 million results. The has-been child star has been in the media for an astounding number of things, whether it be family turmoil, substance abuse issues or her relationship with Samantha Ronson.

In recent years, it’s been Lohan’s numerous run-ins with the law that have made her the brunt of late-night talk show comedy, and the laughter doesn’t stop there — LiLo, with her frequent visits to the pen, also manages to make our criminal justice system look like a joke in itself.

Recently, after violating conditions of her probation by failing a random drug test, Lohan was sentenced to jail time yet again. Less than 24 hours of her sentence underway, she was released from prison, having met the $300,000 bail, another get-out-of-jail-almost- free-card in a deck full of lucky hands for the actress.

It seems that most of the time, when Lohan is reprimanded for her disorderly behavior, the consequences aren’t nearly as dramatic as they would be for someone who lacks celebrity status. By placing terms of bail at $300,000, the judge knew Lohan would have no problem coming up with the sum and would quickly be released from jail just in time to prepare for another night on the town. By being so lenient in the case of Lohan, the judge is only surrounding the judicial branch of our government with questionable motives and a lack of efficiency in its attempts to crack down on disgraceful behavior that traverses all areas of class.

Celebrities are not above the law and it’s about time this is reflected in our current court system. Although it is nearly impossible to set bail at a price a celebrity like Lohan is unable to meet, there needs to be a new standard to keep social elites behind bars just like their more common, under-fortuned counterparts.

Were someone of less social status caught in similar situations as Lohan, they could guarantee themselves a significant jail sentence and frequent drug tests, as law enforcement would be chomping at the bit to put them back behind bars. On the basis of equal rights, everyone should be given the same treatment, whether it be in good times or bad. By making exceptions to the law for people who are exceedingly affluent, the system bestows upon itself a less than favorable light.

Growing up in such a society where celebrities could hypothetically get away with murder is by no means an environment in which children should be raised. Each time you turn on the news, you are bombarded with stories like Lohan’s, where crime comes off as rendering little consequence. It is important for every individual to be held accountable for their actions, but it is highly unlikely the average citizen is going to take such responsibility when they see others getting away with crime so casually.

Yet again, this is an occasion where our criminal justice system could step up and make a difference. By holding celebrities accountable for their offenses, it would be sending forth a message to citizens that it is wrong to commit such crimes and by doing so, there are prices to pay no matter how often your mug appears on the big screen.

As Americans, we sometimes wonder why substance abuse and other issues became the problems they are today and how to subsequently amend these problems. Were people to see there are steep consequences to be paid for disobeying the law, I think a decline in drug possession would ensue. Judges and other court officials need to start implementing drastic measures on offenders, especially those of popular standing, so the message of staunch but equal reprimand for all illegal actions by anyone who performs them will be widespread.

We should no longer have to put up with the shenanigans of Lohan and her party girl friends, particularly when she’s got a debt to pay to a justice system too star-struck to uphold American ideals of justice.

With his cigarette, top hat and Jack Daniels, Slash personifies rock ‘n’ roll. The ex-member of Guns N’ Roses and representative of the golden age of hard rock is still making music. The Minnesota Daily got a chance to talk to the articulate shredder before his show at the Medina Entertainment Center last Thursday about touring, image and the death of rock ‘n’ roll.

Tell me about the tour you’re on.

It’s actually one of the coolest tours I’ve done since the early Guns days. It’s one of those things I had no expectations for. I put together this record, and it’s really cool and everything, and I wanted to put together a tour on it. We put together a fantastic backup band with all guys who aren’t from L.A. and I’d never met before, and it’s been kickass ever since.

You mentioned they’re not from L.A. Does that make a difference?

Apparently. I live in L.A. — I’m a fixture in Los Angeles. I’ve been working within that community for a long time. I know everybody. I know all the players. It’s very predictable at this point, at least for me. When I was making this record, before I even thought about the tour, I started working with people I had never worked with before. It took me out of my comfort zone, and I was working with people who don’t necessarily follow the rules of the people in Los Angeles.

Has this tour brought out a different crowd?

It’s a mixture of really young kids when they can get into the venue … Like people in their 18s to 25s. And then people who come from the old school. It’s a hardcore rock audience. They’re real energetic and real educated. They’re not part of what you call the millennium new guard, like 30 Seconds to Mars and others.

There’s been a lot of argument that rock ‘n’ roll as a movement is dead. What do you think?

It’s not even a [expletive] movement, are you kidding me? The whole spirit of what rock ‘n’ roll is, the sort of risk factor in all that kind of stuff, that hard edge of what rock ‘n’ roll is, is almost completely nonexistent in the industry. Even though there’s a lot of rock bands out there, and people are into the concept, I hate to sound cliché, that there’s a lifestyle to it, but there is definitely an attitude — a freewheeling energy that rock has. It’s so dead in the industry that nobody can gain a foothold and start a movement.

Well, what does it take then? You’re somebody who has defined that sort of lifestyle.

I sort of didn’t want to use that term, because it’s such a general term. I guess it’s a willingness to think outside the box. One of the great things is the old expression, “Sex, drugs and rock ‘n’ roll.” I don’t think it’s necessarily about how you have sex or if you do drugs, but it’s just like staying loose and taking life as it comes and doing things your own way.

But that just sounds so cliché.

It is now. It’s acceptable as [expletive]. Originally what it was supposed to embody was actually pretty cool back in the day.

What will it take for rock ‘n’ roll to come back?

Whatever it will be, it will have to break the established pattern. There’s a certain way this industry has become and it’s going to have to go against that and break a lot of barriers. In order to do that it’s going to be really unacceptable. Once one band does that, they’ll gain a following and start a movement. It will be short lived, of course, but maybe it’ll work.

Have you talked to Axl at all lately?

I haven’t talked to Axl since 1996, man.

What did you think of Chinese Democracy?

It’s definitely an album that continues down the road that Axl was traveling. I think it’s [expletive] good. For all that has been said, I think Axl is a really [expletive] awesome guy and extremely talented.

When critics began comparing “The Social Network” to “The Godfather” and “Citizen Kane“ — perennial contenders for the title of Greatest Movie Ever Made — the indelible words of Flavor Flav started ringing in my ears. “Don’t believe the hype,” the clock-adorned Muppet whined.

Such bold declarations can usually be chocked up to pandering and critical knob-jobbery, but “The Social Network” is actually worthy of praise. “The Godfather,” it is not, but this film gives us insight into the origins of what is arguably the most important creation of the new millennium, and it captivates while doing so.

The movie takes us back to Cambridge in 2003, when a young Mark Zuckerberg — future co-founder of Facebook and the youngest billionaire of all time — is engaged in a type of hyper-literate verbal sparring match not seen since the end of “Gilmore Girls.” The dialogue is punchy and quickly details Zuckerberg’s personality: He’s absurdly smart, quasi-cool in his nerdiness and a bit of a prick.

After pissing off his opponent/girlfriend, he returns home and, fueled by drunken machismo, hacks Harvard’s student databases and creates a website that allows students to vote on the hotness of their female classmates. It’s offensive, misogynistic and it gets Zuckerberg into plenty of trouble, both legal and social. But it also sows the seeds of Facebook.

Zuckerberg’s subsequent rise to power is saturated with moments of innovative brilliance, dumb luckand ruthless betrayal, which in many ways validates the “Kane” and “Godfather” references. To be clear, “The Social Network” is on a tier lower than those two films, but its themes and its presentation are undeniably similar.

Director David Fincher, working off a script by “The West Wing” maestro, Aaron Sorkin, presents much of the story in flashback form, bouncing between later litigation and Facebook’s infancy. This non-linear storytelling, combined with the tycoon protagonist and a sense of loss amongst riches, does invite “Citizen Kane” and “Godfather” comparisons. Still, Fincher retains his own cinematic style, painting Zuckerberg’s life in murky hues and dipping into the Welles vault of tricks only when need be. Employing Trent Reznor’s score bolsters the overarching darkness with ominous undercurrents and walls of throbbing industrial noise.

Yet Fincher’s greatest feat is the way he humanizes each character, instilling the multifarious and contradictive qualities of their real-life counterparts. There’s no easy villain here, no easy hero. Zuckerberg, former partner Eduardo Saverin, the homo superior Winklevoss brothers and the like are depicted with an amount of nuance that’s rarely matched in cinema.

Sorkin shares some of the credit, as does the standout cast headed by Jesse Eisenberg. Eisenberg gets to do his patented fast-talkin’ routine, but trades in kindly Cera-esque awkwardness for blatant insensitivity. Zuckerberg is a complex figure, and Eisenberg sells his genius, his drive and his bitterness. Andrew Garfield imbues Saverin with a spirit of grief that’s affecting when it isn’t maudlin, while Justin Timberlake makes Napster mastermind Sean Parker both slick and sleazy.

“The Social Network” is already being hailed by some as the defining film of our generation. While that’s certainly a case of over-hyping, it doesn’t detract from what is an expertly crafted film.

3.5/4 Stars

In a conversation during the 2008 presidential campaign, one of Brian Weeks’ friends said that President Barack Obama was a Muslim. Weeks’ friend said that he’d learned about it on television.

“Everyone else in the group kind of jumped on this person, saying they were crazy,” Weeks said. “It certainly got me thinking about the role of the media.”

Weeks, who was then a graduate student at U. Minnesota, said the proliferation of rumors about Obama’s religion led him to study media coverage about the issue. Weeks and his adviser, professor Brian Southwell, published a paper in the September issue of the journal Mass Communication and Society.

According to their findings, which looked at major daily newspapers and television news outlets, 373 newspaper stories and 253 television programs mentioned the rumors between June 1, 2008 and Election Day.

Southwell and Weeks said that neither was familiar with any mainstream coverage which stated that Obama was in fact Muslim and that nearly all stories were aimed at dispelling the rumor.

“In no instance did we find any substantive coverage of evidence for it — because the evidence doesn’t exist,” Southwell said.

Still, the belief persists. At the time of the election, Pew Research Center polling found that about 12 percent of Americans believed Obama was Muslim. A Pew survey released in August showed that the number had risen to 18 percent, with a further 43 percent responding, “Don’t know.” Only 34 percent of respondents correctly identified Obama as a Christian.

Southwell and Weeks’ paper found that on the day that a newspaper or television story mentioned the speculation about Obama, Google searches about the rumor showed a corresponding spike. Southwell said their findings contradict an oft-stated belief that mainstream media is growing irrelevant in the age of the Internet.

“On some level I think this study partly serves to make sure that we don’t take media off the hook altogether,” Southwell said. “There’s still quite a bit of culpability here for news outlets.”

Weeks said that an active and curious public would, ideally, become more informed about important stories. But, with polls showing that the level of Americans who believed Obama to be Muslim remaining steady at 12 percent throughout the presidential campaign, Weeks said this might not be the case.

“Best case scenario, people see the story on television or in a newspaper, they go online and they find factual, accurate information,” said Weeks, who completed his master’s in June and is now a doctoral student at Ohio State University. “But that’s not always guaranteed. I think to some extent people will kind of look for information that reinforces their currently held beliefs.”

“Belief can even trump reality”

Southwell and Weeks’ paper points to a single political blogger, Andy Martin, as having first spread the rumor about Obama’s connection to Islam.

Reached by phone, Martin said he still believes that Obama is a Muslim.

“More than ever,” Martin said. “Here’s a guy that’s been in Washington a year and a half, claims he’s a Christian and doesn’t go to church.”

Martin acknowledged that church attendance was not required for one’s Christianity. But Martin, who also doubts the authenticity of the Hawaiian birth certificate provided by the Obama campaign, said that his position has not changed. Martin speculated that Obama might reveal his adherence to Islam after he leaves office.

During the 2008 campaign, Martin appeared on Fox News’ Hannity’s America. In their study, Southwell and Weeks found that 89 percent of the television news coverage of the rumor came from cable news stations like Fox News, CNN and MSNBC.

“Some of the TV coverage — if you’re talking about a 30-second story — it’s just going to raise it and not necessarily go into depth refuting it,” Southwell said.

Both Southwell and Weeks said that newspapers were more comprehensive in disproving the speculation.

Pioneer Press editor Thom Fladung sighed when asked about coverage of the rumors.

“It’s tiresome,” Fladung said.

Neither Fladung nor Star Tribune editor Nancy Barnes recalls assigning or approving any staff reports on the rumors.

Fladung said one factor which he considers when deciding on whether to cover a rumor is “how much buzz” it had generated, pointing to the Pew findings as proof of public interest. But he said there were other standards to decide what the Pioneer Press covers.

“Is this a story you’re going to really put some reporting horsepower behind and really try to give it some substance as to why people believe this?” Flagund asked rhetorically. “And why it matters to them, in a country where ostensibly we have the freedom to practice whatever religion we choose.”

Barnes said that the Star Tribune occasionally follows stories which originated from blogs or the Internet, pointing to the recent exposure of wrongdoing at the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. After allegations surfaced on conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart’s website, the Star Tribune followed up, Barnes said, and wrote staff stories about the local impact of the investigation.

More often than not, Barnes said, the Star Tribune does not chase stories based on unverified Internet reports.

“We don’t consider it our responsibility to quash every rumor that’s flying around on the Internet,” Barnes said. “When it becomes part of a news story, then that’s when we would address the rumor. But most of the times we would just ignore it.”

Barnes said that a rumor also becomes worthy of coverage when the subject of the rumor addresses it publicly.

On Tuesday, Obama did just that, answering a citizen’s question about his Christianity during a backyard event in Albuquerque, N.M. In his response, Obama described himself as “a Christian by choice.”

“My mother was one of the most spiritual people I knew, but she didn’t raise me in the church,” Obama said. “So I came to my Christian faith later in life, and it was because the precepts of Jesus Christ spoke to me in terms of the kind of life that I would want to lead.”

For his part, Martin claims to have an “open mind” on the topic and said he doesn’t hate Obama. But Martin also said he would soon take another trip to Honolulu to investigate Obama’s birth certificate. Martin’s current theory is that Barack Obama Sr. is not the president’s real father. Martin now thinks that the president is not actually a Muslim, but that Obama might believe it to be true.

“See,” Martin said, “belief can even trump reality under certain circumstances.”

A few weeks ago, I started teaching a class of real live history students for my practicum at Lincoln (Neb.) High School. It has been a lot of fun and a very interesting experience so far, but I am quickly learning in a very hands on sort of way that teaching is an extremely complicated activity. As most people know, there are lessons and activities to be planned and assignments and tests to be written and graded. I have to be constantly thinking about classroom management and discipline, and considering varying skill levels and language abilities. I also have to take into account disabilities and a variety of other outside situations that affect my students’ learning. It can be a little overwhelming at times.

Educational policy works in much the same way. We have a tendency in this country to oversimplify public policy into very narrow, compartmentalized issues, but education (in addition to many other things) does not work this way.

Consider, for example, the recent Texas social studies standards debate. Last spring the Texas Board of Education came under a great deal of public scrutiny when they changed some of their state social studies standards to reflect a far-right leaning ideology. A lot of people didn’t like this because these changes in the standards could have huge impact on the content of textbooks all over the country. Earlier this week, the same school board came under fire again for passing a resolution calling on textbook publishers to limit what they print about Islam.

While I am glad this has focused attention on social studies education in this country, much of the ensuing debate has failed to take into account the complexities inherent in education. Regardless of where you stand on the changes and the resolution, the fact of the matter is that the actual impact on most students’ education will be minuscule if any impact is made at all. Teachers are still going to talk about cross-cultural issues and the impact of Islam. Most of the pressing issues that affect education have nothing to do with standards like this. Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s a shame when we start trying to shape curriculum to fit political agendas, but we ought to just let Texas be Texas, and direct our attention elsewhere.

On the other hand, one piece of legislation that I think has done a good job of at least recognizing the complex nature of education but has not received a great deal of attention is President Obama’s “Race to the Top.” This $4.35 billion federal program (which actually was just completed this month, but will likely receive more funding and continue for at least the next few years) was essentially a competition between states to comply with certain criteria intended to spark “reform and innovation.” States stood to win cash awards from tens to hundreds of millions of dollars. There were two yearlong “rounds” of competition, and the winners of the second round were announced late last month (Nebraska did not win).

Now this legislation has certainly been controversial, and personally I think that it is more about compliance with national student and teacher assessment standards and less about innovation than Obama would admit. However, this legislation brings to light many of the important questions we are facing in education and looks at answering them in a comprehensive sort of way.

For example, within the criteria there are provisions to encourage community and family involvement and at the same time provisions that impact state testing and assessment. There are measures for improving low performing schools and for raising overall performance. There are aspects that affect teachers and administrators and others that require state, district and local-level cooperation.

It seems that Race to the Top recognizes some of the complexities within education like the need for a system to accurately measure student learning and development, but also for the freedom to encourage innovative and creative teaching practices or the need to reward encourage great teachers, but also to recognize that some things are beyond teachers’ control.

While I don’t think that in the end “Race to the Top” will deliver the results we’re hoping for, and I don’t think that it gives the right answers to the questions it brings to light, I do know that we need this sort of big picture thinking.

I also think it is commendable of the Obama Administration to try something new like this. No one can deny that our educational system in this country has problems. So while I’m not saying this is a case of “anything is better than nothing,” when you are graduating only a third of students with reading proficiency and facing increasing disparity between schools in this country, it’s worth taking some risks.

Our problems in education won’t be solved by one piece of legislation, and there is no easy fix. The process of improving education has to involve students, families, teachers, administrators, and district, state, and federal officials and we need to work on all levels if we want to see improvement.

If we fixate on single issues without seeing the big picture or get distracted by partisan nonsense like we’ve seen in Texas the past few months, we’ll end up wasting time and hurting students. We need to focus on things that really matter and keep our eye on the big picture.

Obama’s Race to the Top has just ended its second round, and this provides a great opportunity for discussion on some of the things that really matter in education.

Oklahoma wide receiver Jaz Reynolds has been suspended indefinitely because of comments he made on his Twitter account. The sophomore made two posts Tuesday concerning the shooter at the University of Texas at Austin.

After it was reported the shooter took his own life, Reynolds tweeted “Hey everyone in Austin, tx…….kill yourself #evillaugh.” It was followed up by another post that said “Everyone in austin, tx disregard that last tweet….y’all will mess around n do it lmao.”

Coach Bob Stoops suspended the Houston native and called his remarks insensitive.

“Our rivalry with Texas will not come at the expense of dignity and respect,” Stoops said. “We have great concern for what happened in Austin and I am incredibly disappointed that someone connected with our team would react so callously.“

Stoops said the staff took swift action to illustrate how seriously they view the matter.

Reynolds has not played this season and also was suspended for the Air Force game due to academic reasons.

After almost a week of preparation, promotion and talk, the Sooners will travel to Dallas Saturday for the Red River Rivalry against the University of Texas Longhorns.

This year’s matchup between No. 8 OU and No. 21 Texas marks the 105th time the schools meet on the gridiron, the 82nd consecutive time the two have met in Dallas.

OU enters this weekend’s game 4-0 after three-straight wins at home and its most recent victory on the road over Cincinnati, 31-29. The Sooners held a double-digit lead for the majority of the game before giving up 17 points in the fourth quarter and allowing the Bearcats to close the gap before junior wide receiver Ryan Broyles recovered an onside kick to put the game away.

Texas enters 3-1 after a loss in Austin to the UCLA Bruins 34-12. The defenses were solid on both parts for the first half, but the Bruins came out of halftime with a stout running game to stun the Longhorns at home.

Any football fan can identify the Red River Rivalry as one of the biggest games of the year in college football, and it’s not hard to understand why.

Since the Big 12 was formed in 1996, just one other team — Texas A&M in 1997 and 1998 — has represented the South in the conference championship game. There have been a few years, most recently 2008, where the loser of the OU-Texas game represented the South, but such occasions are rare.

This season offers up a few younger players who are looking to make names for themselves as the focus of this rivalry for the future. Both teams feature two sophomore quarterbacks: OU’s Landry Jones and Texas’ Garrett Gilbert. Both were highly touted out of high school, and both saw time when the starters went down, Jones considerably earlier than Gilbert.

Wide receiver is another position where two young talents are emerging for both teams. OU’s Kenny Stills and UT’s Mike Davis are both true freshmen, and both are their team’s second most productive receivers statistically. Davis even leads the Longhorns in receiving touchdowns and receptions.

Texas leads the Sooners in the series 59-40-5, including the last two meetings. The Sooners have won six times in the new millennium.