As peace talks in the Middle East continue for yet another week with little progress, a central question looms large in the minds of many: Why should we care about Israel? It seems like a fair question. Why should we bother learning about Israeli history? Why should we seek to understand the nuances of a conflict that is seemingly without end? It is, admittedly, far easier to silently support Israel, or even turn a blind eye, than to vocally defend her. So why bother?

The answer is simple; because if we do not, we — not as Jews, but as humanitarians — have lost our place in the world. The world has been increasingly condemnatory toward Israel in a way that is frightening not just for the existence of the Jewish State, but perhaps more ominously, for the future of human rights and freedom. Israel is one of the only nations in the Middle East that accepts refugees from Darfur; the only nation that offers more than 300 courses on water management, emergency medicine and refugee absorption for emerging nations annually; the only nation that has built hospitals and treatment facilities in nations of individuals who have sworn to destroy her; and the only nation in the Middle East where Arab women are free and equal in the eyes of the law. It is also the only nation that is condemned an average of 18 times per year by the United Nations Human Rights Commission. The Commission has passed negligible resolutions against a number of countries, such as Turkey, which refuses to admit its part in one of the most grievous genocidal campaigns in human history — second only to the Holocaust; Iran, where women are legally murdered by their fathers because they are too Western or too “loose;” Sudan, which has, through a terrifying program of government sponsored mass-murder, slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Africans; and China, which has been terrorizing illegally occupied Tibet for years. When Israel responds to more than 10,000 rocket attacks from Gaza with military force, though, “human rights” officials have no problem labeling that “genocide,” all the while letting the real genocides and human rights violations go unresolved – and oftentimes unacknowledged.

If we do not care about Israel, then we allow terms like “human rights,” “freedom,” and “humanitarian aid” to be mercilessly hijacked by terror organizations and corrupt governments. We allow organizations founded on the values of equality, progressivism and unalienable rights to be blinded by a block of nations founded on theocracy, xenophobia and, as is increasingly the case, jihad. If we do not care about Israel, we cannot bring her truth to the world, and in doing so, help refocus international attention on serious human rights violations.

It is up to us not just to stand up for Israel, but, in so doing, to stand up for the values she holds dear — ones that are not unfamiliar to us as Americans. Israel is at the forefront of the environmental movement and is the only country that entered the 21st century with a net gain in trees and with plans to use electric-only cars by 2025. She is also at the forefront of medicine, having brought what were unanimously praised as the top medical treatment facilities to Haiti during this year’s earthquake. She has rescued hundreds of thousands of refugees and has developed groundbreaking research for treating diabetes, Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s diseases. She has helped develop the technology required for cell phones and laptops and is even in the process of developing a flying car! All the while she stands up for human rights and freedom, unilaterally returning more than 93 percent of any land she has ever won in war and negotiating with all Arab leaders – like Jordan and Egypt – who will agree to sit at a table.

What separates Israel from many nations, however, is that she even negotiates with those who have consistently responded to her peace efforts with hatred and violence. Although both Fatah and Hamas have within their founding charters a promise to destroy Israel and the Jews, Israel has refused to allow this to deter her efforts toward achieving peace with her Palestinian neighbors. In 2000, Israel offered Palestinians 97 percent of the West Bank, all of Gaza and East Jerusalem. Ninety-four percent of Palestinian civilians believed this offer was sufficient. Palestinian leadership — far from listening to the pleas for peace from its own people — instigated the Second Intifada, resulting in the deaths of over 5,500 of its own people, 1,100 Israeli civilians and 64 foreigners. When Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza in 2005 in a gesture of peace and reconciliation, Arab leaders used the territory not to build up their own governments and work toward democracy in Palestine, but rather to set up weapons caches and launch rockets into Israeli kindergartens. Yet, even to this day, Israel continues to push for peace in the hopes that one day the Palestinian Authority’s political manipulation of its own people will be replaced by an honest desire to work toward the democracy and peace so desired by most Palestinians.

In articulating a basic framework for human rights in the 1940s, Eleanor Roosevelt said, “I know that we will be the sufferers if we let great wrongs occur without exerting ourselves to correct them.” Looking at the facts, it becomes clear: Without Israel, it is not just the Jews who will suffer, but the humanitarians. It is not just the existence of Israeli developed cures, treatments and technologies that will be forgotten, but the very concepts of freedom, peace and liberty themselves.

Prior to his comedy show on Oct. 3, comedian Lewis Black granted The Signal a sit-down.  The Q&A, included below, touched on Black’s gripes with Glenn Beck, the iPhone and the state of Delaware, among other things.

We’d like to think this conversation got his juices flowing.

Signal: The New York Times Magazine profiled Glenn Beck this week.

Lewis Black: Did they really?

S: They did. A ten-page article.

LB: Ten pages? Gives me a headache just to think about it. Go on to the next question … no, go on, finish.

S: They noted that Beck’s made over 400 on-air references to fascism, Nazis, Hitler and the Holocaust, etc. Do you think that they took a page from your “Nazi Tourette’s” segment on “The Daily Show”?

LB: Yeah, they did take a page from it and they should’ve given us some credit, you know?

S: So you scooped The New York Times Magazine?

LB: Well, no. It’s just you might as well, if you’re doing that, then at least say something. It’s typical of them, they ignore the work. My work. Bastards.

S: You’ve used your comedy to comment on politics, very prominently during the Bush administration. You’ve described your outlook in the past as “being on the Titanic every single day and being the only person who knows what is going to happen.” Is there any particular absurdity in American culture right now that you see as the next iceberg?

LB: Well yeah, we’re not gonna pay for anything. So at some point, we need to figure out how to pay for stuff again. We’ve completely ignored it. And the biggest absurdity is for anyone to say you can’t tax wealthy people. I mean, that is stunning in its ignorance, it’s spectacular. When I read that there’s this kind of debate about it, it makes me think I’m crazy.  Part of the reason of the Great Depression was — and everyone knows this, everyone knows it — that there was a disparity between the wealthiest and the middle class and the rest of the country.  And we’re repeating that again. There’s a repeat zone. Okay, so we’re not in a depression, but … Will Rogers would make jokes about the redistribution of income. You can’t even say those words. I would get along better in a crowd of conservatives if I actually took my penis out and walked around than to say the words, “redistribution of income.” That one really drives me around the wall, more than anything else. That and the fact that we’re gonna have to debate health care again. Seriously, what was that about? We’re gonna discuss it again? And you guys are the ones who are gonna get screwed.  So, good luck.  Seriously, the adults are not dealing with reality.

S: What’s the role of comedy and your role as a comedian in sort of confronting this whole absurdity?

LB: Well, my role appears to be that I stand up and basically repeat what I read in the newspaper, and go, “Holy fuck!”  That’s my job. That basically appears to be what I’m getting paid for. It’s a pretty good gig.

S: Your style has been describe as “ranting,” even when what you’re actually saying is smarter and more coherent than what we’ve come to expect from a lot of our country’s talking heads. Is the way you deliver jokes a reaction to the crazier people you’ve heard on TV and radio?

LB: I was doing it way before them. Glenn Beck was not wandering around ranting and raving. That’s come over time. Limbaugh actually for a while talked about the fact that he was an entertainer. Now he thinks of himself as a pundit, which is, really, more psychotic. The one thing you can rely on is that he’s fat. But it’s not a reaction in terms of them, it’s just, I’m funny when I do that. I’ve always been funny because I got upset. I mean, I would get upset about things that were just stupid. You know, really meaningless almost. Like this Droid. Like tonight, I’ll talk about … I’ve now had an iPhone, and I’ve got a Droid, and am as well versed as you guys are in technology. They made the iPhone, which is not a phone, but a really great computer, and then the Droid, actually, is a really good phone, but it’s a piece-of-shit computer. And then I get upset about that, on a simple level. I’m funniest when I’m angry. That would’ve been the answer to the question in the beginning. You can cut the rest of that crap out.

S: The state of New Jersey itself is usually a prime target for visiting comedians. I know you’ve performed here several times. Is there any joke about New Jersey that hasn’t already been made?

LB: My opening act, John (Bowman), will be making a few. But he likes it. I’ve never had a problem with New Jersey. I think it’s an excellent buffer from Delaware.

S: Well, we should tell that to Delaware.

LB: We’re gonna need it when they elect that psychotic down there.

S: Christine O’Donnell?

LB: Oh yeah. You know what her average salary was last year? This I didn’t know until today. I don’t get this information fast enough. Do you know what it was? She made $5,800 last year. Isn’t that unbelievable? A fucking monkey in a suit could’ve made $5,800 in Delaware. Seriously. Shave a simian and put a suit on it and let it interview, and do some sort of dopey work. How do you … and then you run for the senate. And people vote for you. How is it a state? How is Delaware even allowed to be a state after that point?

S: Your comedy is forthright, to say the least. How do you find college audiences respond compared to any typical audience?

LB: They’re great, you know? First off, they can deal with paragraphs, which is exciting. That’s always a thrill. I think the only thing that separates college audiences from a regular audience is, most campuses still have that political-correct thing that’s floating around. So you say something and there’s this, “ooh, I can’t believe he said that!” That is the only part, and it’s really kind of appalling. I think that a college is a great place to have a discussion about political correctness, but you’re allowed to laugh at a joke. Okay? And when political correctness gets into what people deem to be humor, unless it’s denigrating, or offensive, or mean-spirited on a sick level, most of the time, what happens with political correctness is they don’t really get what the joke’s about. If you make a joke about Alzheimer’s, chances are the joke’s not about Alzheimer’s, you fucker.

S: In November, you embark on a seven-day comedy cruise.

LB: Yeah I know, that’s weird, isn’t it?

S: Is there such thing, in your opinion, as a “cruise person,” and are you one of them?

LB: Well I am kind of. I’m not a cruise person, per se, in the sense of, “Oh, boy, let’s go down and cha-cha. I can’t wait to do a merengue.” No. And I’m not near-dead. However, what is great, since I travel all the fucking time … I’ve been on a few cruises, and part of the reason I did it is … I don’t want to be on a plane. I’m spending 150-200 days a year on a tour bus traveling from place to place. The nice thing about a boat for me, or about going somewhere and just staying somewhere for a week, is the boat is the place. You get there, and I don’t have to deal with anything, I don’t have to unpack, pack. And I go see St. Petersburg, or Stockholm, or Oslo, and what’s nice about that is you see it and then you go, “Wow, I don’t have to come back to this shithole,” or “Wow, this was really great.” St. Petersburg being kind of a shithole. But they’re working on it. And I’ve been on two transatlantic (cruises), and those are really great because, at least for me, nobody can get to me. There’s no way they can get out there. Especially if I have an iPhone, there’s absolutely no way.

S: In the movie “Accepted,” a couple years ago, you played a college dean. Do you have any advice for real-life college kids, as somebody who’s been doing what he likes to do for a while?

LB: I had an argument with a friend of mine recently about the fact that I believe everyone, I think, at a certain point, actually has something that they really wanna do. And if they don’t, chances are it’s because either their parents or a teacher or somebody told them it was insane for them to do that. I don’t care how stupid or idiotic whatever someone’s idea of what it is they want to do is, I think that you have to pursue it. If you pursue what it is you think you want to do, whether you’re qualified for it or not, you’ll end up doing what you wanna do. As opposed to going, “Gee, I have to make this kind of money,” or “Gee, my parents won’t be happy if…” You can fill in all the blanks. You’re still going to have to see a shrink eventually. All of you. So in order to get rid of two-thirds of what might be the problem, do what you wanna do, ‘cause you don’t wanna wake up at my age and go, “Gee, I could’ve been.” That’s the worst. I think that’s what it boils down to.

Virginia’s Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli reissued a civil investigative demand to U. Virginia last Wednesday concerning research grants received by former University Prof. Michael Mann for his climate change research, according to an announcement Cuccinelli made Monday

Cuccinelli — who is accusing Mann of using manipulated or deceitful data to obtain taxpayer-funded research grants — hopes to use this renewed subpoena to acquire documents that will enable him to prosecute Mann under the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act.

Cuccinelli initially issued a subpoena for the records in April. The University opposed the request to relinquish the documents, and Albemarle County circuit judge Paul Peatross, Jr. rejected the demand on the grounds that it lacked necessary information and did not focus specifically on grants paid for by state dollars. According to Peatross’ conclusion, “it is not clear what [Mann] did that was misleading, false or fraudulent in obtaining funds from the Commonwealth of Virginia.” Cuccinelli, however, is appealing the original ruling to the state supreme court.

According to a Monday press release from the attorney general, “the new CID has been drafted to comply with the judge’s ruling, contains information the judge believed was necessary and is more limited in scope than the prior CIDs.” The revised demand focuses on one specific state grant, four less than the number addressed by the CID issued in April.

Mann, who is now a meteorology professor at Pennsylvania State University, believes the new CID is misdirected. Cuccinelli’s claims of fraud have been directed specifically against climate change research conducted by Mann two decades ago. The grant discussed in the most recent demand, however, was used to pay for an unrelated study, Mann said.

“The grant that Mr. Cuccinelli cites supported the study of natural land-vegetation-atmosphere interaction in the African savanna,” Mann stated in an e-mail.

Mann added that his role in the project funded by this grant was relatively minor.

“The grant had nothing to do with climate change at all, let alone my specific work on paleoclimate from the 1990s that Mr. Cuccinelli continues to misrepresent and attack with false, thoroughly discredited, allegations,” Mann said. “Neither of the two articles on paleoclimate that Mr. Cuccinelli attacks in the CID are even mentioned or cited in the grant proposal.”

Nevertheless, Cuccinelli has repeatedly cited one graph Mann used to present his climate change findings.

“Dr. Mann’s Hockey Stick graph is based on suspect data,” Cuccinelli stated in the Monday press release. “Others have shown that random numbers can be put into Mann’s algorithm, and they always produce a hockey stick graph.”

University spokesperson Carol Wood released a statement expressing the University’s intent to continue to resist Cuccinelli’s demands for documents.

“University leaders are disappointed that the institution must continue to litigate with the Attorney General, but will continue to stand for the principles the University has articulated since the CIDs were first put forward in April — and to support academic communities here and elsewhere,” Wood said.

Mann said he believes the investigation is an attack specifically designed to thwart efforts to conduct global warming research.

“I find it extremely disturbing that Mr. Cuccinelli seeks to continue to abuse his power as the attorney general of Virginia in this way, pursuing an ongoing smear campaign against the University of Virginia, me and other climate scientists,” Mann said. “All Virginian citizens ought to be extremely concerned that he is using their tax dollars to pursue a partisan witch hunt.”

The law firm Hogan Lovells, which successfully represented the University in circuit court this summer, will be commissioned again by the University to review the most recent round of demands from the attorney general. The litigation has so far cost the University $352,874.76, Wood said, adding that the fees have been paid for from private funds.

When most remember grade school, they recall sloppy joes and other unhealthy lunch options. While U.S. school cafeteria workers do their best to provide healthy, delicious meals for children, they are hindered by severely limited resources.

On May 5, Michelle Obama unveiled the “Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act,”   which would grant public schools increased funding to produce more nutritious meals, taking a step to reduce childhood obesity.

Childhood obesity is a serious epidemic. According to a 2008 report from the Centers for Disease Control, 18.1 percent of Americans age 12 to 19 are obese, a tremendous increase in obesity levels from the late ’80s when it was only 10.5 percent.

According to a survey in Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, nearly 1 in 3 children in the U.S. are overweight.

Ensuring that the next generation of youth is healthier is an idea that politicians across the spectrum can agree with, as skyrocketing medical costs reflect the growing problem.

However, members of Congress continue to argue over the proposed method to fund this $4.5 billion plan, which includes diverting funds from the food stamp program, known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, more than 40 million people nationwide are receiving food stamps, and a preliminary estimate in 2009 shows more than $50 billion was spent last year to fund the program. According to CNN, the proposal would take $2.2 billion from SNAP, amounting to a cut of less than 5 percent.

Thanks to the recession, food stamp participation has shot up 51 percent since 2007, according to the New York Times. The number of people applying for unemployment benefits declined by 16,000 last week, according to Labor Department figures, signaling that unemployment will reach its peak and bottom out. Although there are still tough times ahead, a recovery is in the works.

As hard working Americans get back on their feet, less funding will be necessary for SNAP because fewer people will need its assistance. With this in mind, a 5 percent cut does not seem strenuous to SNAP.

Proponents seek to use $4.5 billion over the course of 10 years, meaning that the $2.2 billion sought from SNAP would not be taken in one lump sum but instead in small portions over time. Assuming cutbacks are handled properly by experts, with respect to the economic conditions of tomorrow, the needy will be virtually unaffected.

Taking such actions would not only combat a growing obesity epidemic, but also signify faith that our economic conditions will improve in the next few years and that those just beginning to use food stamps will not indefinitely need them.

Nick Wauters, the creator, writer and co−executive producer of NBC’s new series “The Event,” seems painfully unaware that he is not, in fact, J. J. Abrams.

Not to completely dismiss the show’s frequent−flashback narrative structure or the way five new mysteries pop up around every corner, but hasn’t America had enough? Everyone is still recovering from “Lost” (2004−10) – viewers may not be prepared for lackluster but mildly intriguing rip−offs yet.

There are, of course, fundamental differences between “The Event” and its spiritual predecessor from which it borrows so heavily. For one, the characters are less interesting in “The Event.” After careful scrutiny, three general character groups emerge from the tangle of flashbacks and seemingly random murders.

First we have Sean Walker (Jason Ritter) and his girlfriend Leila (Sarah Roemer), an above−average couple exchanging above−average lines with each other on a cruise in Antigua. It is unclear why these people are important, but before the cruise ends, Leila’s been kidnapped and there is no record of either of them ever boarding the ship. How mysterious.

Sean and Leila’s unfortunate tale is told entirely via flashbacks; in the present, Leila is tied to a chair and Sean is hijacking planes and getting framed for murder – you know, the usual. The story almost makes sense if viewers are agile enough to piece together the show’s perplexing timeline, but not really.

The next group includes U.S. President Elias Martinez (Blair Underwood), who basically serves as a carbon copy of David Palmer from “24” (2001−10), and all of his probably evil political lackeys who do not want him to reveal the titular event to the American public. A few rather large events have already occurred in two episodes (for example, an airborne plane kind of just disappears), so viewers are left unclear about what the singular event really is. Ultimately, “The Event” should not be applauded for its specifics.

And at the heart of all this, of course, are aliens.

Yes, unbeknown to Martinez until 13 months ago (as illustrated by countless flashbacks), the United States has been harboring 97 extra−terrestrial fugitives – who conveniently look exactly like humans but have a few special powers – in a remote Alaskan internment camp for six decades. They refuse to explain where they came from or why they are here, which follows the show’s irritating preoccupation with mystery. The only thing that head alien Sophia (Laura Innes) can say is, “We mean you no harm.”

Time will tell whether Sophia (easily the only interesting character in the entire show) means what she says, or if she, in fact, wants to destroy Earth and all humankind. Either way, Innes is a great actress and definitely a reason to continue playing along with “The Event’s” nonsense.

Unfortunately, the other actors are not as compelling.

In other news, Wauters and a handful of producers have promised that they will not leave all of the show’s mysteries suspended for eternity the same way “Lost” did. This promise could prove heartening for frustrated fans who love a little suspense and uncertainty in their television, but also prefer having their questions answered before their grandkids have grandkids.

What viewers need more than anything right now is a few answers, and if Wauters and his team understand this, then “The Event” just might be able to pull through and stave off cancellation for a few months.

2.5 out of 5 stars

“Glee” became an instant sensation when it first aired in September 2009. Since its pilot episode – the brainchild of Ryan Murphy, formerly known for “Nip/Tuck” (2003−10) – it has turned into something of a cultural phenomenon, evidenced by its 19 Emmy nominations and four wins.

“Gleeks” have rejoiced to see this musical−dramedy back for its second season – but has it lost some of its spark?

Led by the overly ambitious Rachel Berry (Lea Michelle), students of McKinley High’s New Directions glee club cope with their personal lives while facing harassment by fellow students for their membership in this unpopular group. Even teachers attack these unfortunate teens: The comically sinister cheerleading coach Sue Sylvester (Jane Lynch) tries tirelessly to disassemble the club. Will Schuester (Matthew Morrison), the corny glee club teacher, inspires the students to continue expressing themselves through music, regardless of the adversities they face.

“Audition,” the second−season premiere, presents a new soiree of drama.

Fresh faces add to the intrigue of the plot: A new football coach siphons off Sue and Will’s club budgets, and two new students come into town, both coincidentally with fantastic singing abilities. The appearance of the latter two on the scene is convenient enough, as the glee club needs new members.

The second episode, “Britney/Brittany,” featured the music of Britney Spears and brought back the old love triangle between Will, his psycho ex−wife Terry (Jessalyn Gilsig) and Emma (Jayma Mays), the neurotic guidance counselor. The glee club wants to perform Britney Spears’s songs for the homecoming assembly despite Will’s insistence that Spears is not a good role model.

These opening episodes unfortunately seem to indicate that this lauded series has become a victim of its own hype. The first episode was extremely ambitious in establishing characters and plots while simultaneously trying to woo a new audience turned on by the show’s rise to fame.

Something that many dedicated viewers found appealing about “Glee’s” music was its mixture of old and new songs. As part of its attempt to attract a new audience and still maintain its loyal fans, the show integrated five Top 40 hits into the first episode.

This change might have come off as effortless if it had been done in the right context, but the show seemed too rushed and eager to show off its new “cool” pedigree, and little attention was paid to the logical segueing into song.

Even so, the first episode was not without its rewards.

The songs performed by the glee club were executed as excellently as ever. The introduction of the new football coach, Bieste (Dot Marie Jones), added a healthy and much−desired dose of drama. And, of course, no “Glee” episode passes without imparting a moral: Sue’s failed plan to tarnish her new opponent’s reputation teaches the audience a valuable lesson about treating others with respect.

As for the highly anticipated Britney episode, fans may have hoped for the same success evident in season one’s Madonna episode. The strength of the latter was its successful incorporation of Madonna songs into the established plot.

The Britney episode unfortunately lacked that integration, and it’s just too early in this season to have an episode take a break from plot arcs that have barely been established. Although the episode’s cabaret−style theme was highly entertaining, Murphy made a poor directing call by offering this episode so soon in the season.

Not all is lost for “Glee.” The show still brings the novelty of musical comedy to the homes of millions every Tuesday night. The characters, including Mercedes (Amber Reilly), Kurt (Chris Colfer) and Artie (Kevin McHale), still have lessons to teach us about how to deal with our differences in the context of a myopic society. And, of course, viewers look forward to the melodrama created by the relationships, alliances and enemies made through the glee club.

Hopefully, the show will return to what made it so famous in the first place: its authenticity. “Glee” is about being an individual, a character and even an outcast, and on some level, everyone can relate to that.

For those of you who have seen the elusive Catfish, whether you hated or loved it, you have to admit that it has one of the best movie trailers of 2010. The trailer begins innocently enough, chronicling young love, yet it quickly evolves into something dark and ominous. The fade out right before the main character peeks into a barn window is one of the most well-edited and suspenseful cliffhangers I have ever witnessed.  From the atmosphere and vibe of the trailer, one would expect Catfish to be an unrelenting documentary horror film, akin to Paranormal Activity or The Blair Witch Project.

You could not be more wrong.

Universal Picture’s indie gem Catfish follows the plight of young New York photographer Nev Schulman. Nev’s younger brother, Ariel, and his best friend Henry, are both film school students and decide to document Nev’s innocent relationship with eight year-old Abbey, an artistic prodigy from Michigan. Nev first encounters Abbey on Facebook when she asks his permission to paint one of his photos that he recently uploaded. Nev agrees and is soon sent an incredible watercolor replica of the photo through the mail. Nev is impressed and thus allows Abbey to paint more of his photos in order to build up her portfolio. He adds Abbey’s mom, older sister and several members of their extended family over Facebook and finds himself becoming involved in their lives without having met any of them.

Soon, Nev begins developing a more intimate relationship online with Abbey’s attractive older sister Megan.  After several months pass, Nev decides to take the relationship to the next level and plans a surprise visit to Abbey’s family farm on a weekend. Ariel and Henry follow Nev on his trip with their video cameras rolling. To say anything more would be spoil one of the most thought-provoking films in recent memory.

Catfish is filmed from the point of view of the two impartial observers, Ariel and Henry, who in turn represent the audience. The film is primarily made up of footage of the characters’ experience. As far as authenticity goes, the film certainly feels realistic, but the jury is still out on that one. It is difficult to write a review for Catfish without spoiling the film, and Universal has gone to great lengths to try to preserve the film’s secret – at the secret screening I attended, they threatened to throw you out of the theater if they so as much as saw a glow from a cell phone or digital camera. The marketing strategy that is being utilized is difficult to maintain when the allure of the film is so tightly entwined with the shocking ending. But I suggest holding back and seeing the film cold.

Catfish is not a horror film – that is not to say, however, that there aren’t some incredibly tense scenes. It’s a tragic love story that weaves it way through our dependability on technology. While the film The Social Network documents the rise of Facebook, Catfish reveals its disturbing effect on our society. This is a film that could not have been made five years ago. It survives purely on its relevancy and mystery. And, strangely enough, that is all it needs.

Catfish is a well-made documentary that has a lot to say about our culture. Will it induce paranoia? Yes. Will it make you think twice about accepting that friend request? Definitely.

As the film’s enigmatic posters cryptically declare: “Don’t Let Anybody Spoil It for You.”

Overall rating: 3 out of 4 Stars

People depend on texting too much as a communication tool. Don’t get me wrong, I admit that I do it too, but when texting becomes the whole communications toolbox as opposed to maybe the hammer or wrench, it might be an unhealthy dependence.

Let’s explore how texting has become the substitute for face-to-face communication, or word of mouth with a phone.

Break-ups
It used to be the polite and respectable method to make the time to break it off with your significant other and let them know it isn’t working anymore by looking them in the eye and using your words wisely to end it.

Yes, a little awkward, but taking that personal time to do so can really mean something to the other person.

Today many people resort to the phone keypad to cut the ties.

No matter if it is three texts long, or three words long, no one wants to be broken up with from a telephone screen.

It does help avoid awkwardness, but the blow to someone’s ego can be just as bad.

As much as I would love to get a, ‘We r dun. I’m sry, but shizz just didn’t werk rite btween us,” it makes me want to confiscate their phone until they turn 13, and learn how to spell.

Tell me to my face and maybe we can be friends, or at least I can hold on to the little respect I have left for you.

Cockiness
Words written on a screen are so much different than actually saying them either by phone or to someone’s face.

For example, the ever popular: Sexting.

Intoxicated or not, it seems to be easier for people to come off stronger through written word than by word-of-mouth.

Personally, “Com over 2 my place, ben getting smashed all nite, and wud luv to see you,” at 2 a.m. just really doesn’t interest me at all.

Or, maybe you are fighting with someone.

I’ve been there. It is definitely easier to text fight than actually talk.

After an endless cluster of words, it sucks the energy out of you, and talking might have been worth it.

Professional/college appointments:
Texting your professor is a horrible idea, unless they suggest it.

Teachers don’t really appreciate, “Hey teach. Can’t make it to our appt 2day. I am just 2 hungover lol.”

My computer is vomiting red squiggly lines from all the misspellings, and I am sure teachers feel the same way.

Don’t tell your boss you are going to be late through a 25-word text.

As a news editor, I’d probably respond with, “Ur fired lol.”

Well, maybe not that drastic, but call or e-mail with proper grammar and spelling.

Use your texts wisely, not something to lean on because the other tools in your communication toolbox require a little more effort.

Lol.