Walking into a film that is only receiving attention because of viral marketing is dangerous. The film “Catfish,” a documentary about a young man’s relationship with a family over Facebook, relies on the curiosity of the filmgoer to generate interest for the film. The minimalist trailer only shows the developing relationship, with a brief glimpse of a creepy barn and quotes of critics describing how emotionally turbulent the film is. I was a victim to the advertising; I was immediately fascinated at what could possibly be the shocking twist of the film.

The buildup of a film is essential for creating a well-crafted thriller or drama; especially a film like “Catfish,” in which the first 45 minutes is spent solely with the protagonist establishing a relationship with the family over the internet. Still, the film manages to do nothing for the viewer beyond alienate their comfort zone. Many of the viewers will be squirming in their seats at the bizarre and all-too-intimate relationships being established over Facebook. After the shock value settles, the film becomes boring and redundant. The main draw is understanding who the people on the other end of the line could possibly be.

Without ruining it, as the film’s marketing stresses, the build-up is one that isn’t shocking or worth waiting for. Essentially, the viewer is left with an overwhelming feeling to shout at the screen, “I told you so!” because of the predictability of the scenario the characters get into.

Despite the fact that the twist is underwhelming, it’s the only part of the film that manages to capture the audience, at least to feel pity for what is going on on-screen. The sequences that occur in the second act of the film are so pathetic that the viewer cannot help but feel at least slightly sympathetic with the characters. While the film still manages to make the viewer feel like they are watching a series of characters who are disturbed and in need of psychiatric help, there is a sense of pity that the film eventually manages to evoke.

While the film is overall a mediocre effort, it tackles subject material that seems to be one of the last few taboos of society. The film is commendable for attempting to expose a social habit that really should be covered more in film.

Exploring online relationships, especially the aspect of how deceiving they can be, is something that could be exploited easily for an effective drama or thriller film. Still, “Catfish” is the first effort that comes to mind since the excellent “Hard Candy” was released. For the fact that it is focusing on such an obscure film topic, the film garners at least some interest based solely on the fact that it contains subject matter that is rarely covered in film.

Still, one thing that must be clarified about “Catfish” is that it is by no means a thriller. Despite the advertising, which leads the audience to believe that they are seeing another “Paranormal Activity” or “Cloverfield,” “Catfish” is more of a dramatic depiction of a misleading Facebook relationship. Viewers expecting a horror film will be severely disappointed.

Despite the fact that the film was an overall letdown, the innovative and relevant material presented make it a moderately passable film-going experience.

After reading “Assholes Finish First,” my perceptions about Tucker Max have changed completely. Last year, I was under the impression that he was a genius, a master of his trade. Now, after suffering through his latest narcissistic work, Max demonstrates that he is absolutely nothing more than an outspoken asshole with nothing clever left to say.

While the analysis would seem harsh for any other author, Max welcomes the criticism and embraces the fact that he embodies it. But, in “Assholes Finish First,” he is over-indulgent with the image he has created himself to be. The shtick that made “I Hope They Serve Beer In Hell” so shocking and original is now tired and boring: short stories that are intended to leave the audience in stitches will instead find them rolling their eyes at Max as he further fans the fire that is his overblown ego.

What made “I Hope They Serve Beer In Hell” so special was that it was cleverly written and found choice stories that were best saved between close friends. Max didn’t hold back when writing his first biography, writing his absolutely ridiculous stories with impeccable comedic timing while completely disregarding his own dignity.

His previous work was fresh and inspired, with no need to be reproduced. “Assholes Finish First” feels like a collection of stories that didn’t make the cut for the previous biography. Many of the stories are simply rehashed nights of Max going out and finding new women to sleep with, with slight variations on what makes each woman eccentric and disposable. Max’s adventures would make for an entertaining hung over breakfast shared with close friends, but became simultaneously dull and offensive reading for a wider audience.

A collection of short stories such as these should be able to leave the reader with distinct memories of what made the book such a fun read. “Assholes Finish First” has trouble creating any distinguishing factors between any of the short stories, whether it be shock value or entertainment. All of the stories blend together, creating essentially a 400-page narrative about Tucker Max’s weekend. Any reader could realize, about halfway through this novel, that they could have written a weekend comparable to Max’s experience with enough shots of Dubra and a few frat parties. Surely it wouldn’t be as regrettable as sitting through reading about Tucker Max being a professional dirtbag.

In his first book, Max’s over-the-top and repulsive personality was somewhat endearing for comedic purposes. In “Assholes Finish First,” it’s insanely irritating and impossible not to loathe. Much of the material is simply a love ballad Tucker Max writing about how much he loves Tucker Max. The fact of the matter is that, as the stories trudge on, the reader sees no reason to love Tucker Max, or even consider him interesting enough to sustain a whole book.

That said, I encourage Max to continue to make efforts toward being a comedian. Despite the fact that “Assholes Finish First” is trash, it still has brief flashes of humor that show that Max isn’t as half-witted as the stories draw him to be. “I Hope They Serve Beer In Hell” is a great example of how the man has the potential to be an excellent comedian.

If he had some variation in the stories he was telling in his books, he could be comparable to Chelsea Handler, who writes similar material but is successful in creating hilarious and distinguished biographical collections of short stories. But if Max continues along the path he is writing, the general public will catch on that his routine simply isn’t funny or entertaining.

There are many annoying things that can occur during an argument that make it a waste of time. Among these things are fighting with a 5-year-old – or someone with the mentality of one – fighting with someone who speaks another language and fighting with either your parents or your boss because, well, no one ever wins those arguments.

However, we find the most annoying thing to be fighting with someone who believes that being the loudest qualifies them as the winner. Sorry, but the pitch of your voice does not affect what you are saying. It only makes you look out-of-control. Being loud also applies to people who go to the extreme in attempts to prove their point. So for the sake of our argument, go ahead and read this editorial at-most twice and in a quiet whisper in your head.

Fortunately, though, we aren’t the only ones who feel this way. On Oct. 30 John Stewart will lead a “Rally to Restore Sanity” in Washington D.C.

According to its official website, the rally is for “people who think shouting is annoying, counterproductive and terrible for your throat; who feel that the loudest voices shouldn’t be the only ones that get heard.”

Stewart wants the “busy majority,” those “who’ve been too busy to go to rallies, who actually have lives and families and jobs,” to attend the rally. If only the Daily 49er could attend such an event. A dosage of moderation is definitely what this country needs, especially in politics. Of course, certain issues need attention and we aren’t ones to discourage voicing your opinion, but doing so shouldn’t require two sides to engage in an all out war against one another.

Since it is critical to be able to acknowledge both sides of an issue – see what we’re doing here – we know that both sides must be expressed, but they shouldn’t be expressed with screams. People can make reasonable and appropriate decisions without all the craziness. People should be able to see eye-to-eye on an issue, without having to look up or down at someone to do so.

There is just one problem with rallying at the Washington Monument in order to encourage America to “take it down a notch,” though. Drawing big crowds of people would be hypocritical. Stewart may be a satirisit, but at some point he has to be held accountable for what he literally does.

There is one person who took the hypocrisy a step further though. Glenn Beck, whose August rally “Restoring Honor” is basically being mocked by Stewart’s.

Beck attempted to link patriotism and religion on the anniversary of the “I Have a Dream” speech of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Beck’s rally drew in predominantly white and conservative crowds. The political view of the anticipated participants for Stewart’s upcoming rally couldn’t be summed up in just a single sentence but that doesn’t mean he’s not being hypocritical.

Taking place on the same day as Stewart’s, Stephen Colbert’s rally “March to Keep Fear Alive,”  dichotomizes it.

Colbert is obviously poking fun with the title since it’s impossible to escape all the warnings that are loudly expressed. We just need to get rid of those ideas that are exaggerated and settle for some moderation.

Our world is at a turning point, and how we choose to act in the next few years will determine the fate of many generations to come. I’m referring to the looming global oil crisis, and its inevitable effects. Oil is a tremendous source of energy, it makes economic activity possible and affords the average person of today a standard of living far beyond that of the wealthiest elites just a few generations ago.

Petroleum and other hydrocarbon fuels have freed us from toil and manual labor, transforming our daily lives in the process. It would almost be impossible to exaggerate our dependence on petroleum. It powers the plows in our fields, it brings our food to us from an average distance of 1,200 miles; it takes us to work and back; its by-products are converted into pharmaceuticals and much more.

Unfortunately, the future of world oil production is dubious. There is only so much oil in the ground and most of it has already been discovered. It is for this reason that dangerous projects like the deepwater horizon well in the gulf of Mexico are being pursued. All of the low hanging fruit has been cleared, and we are frantically seeking ways to replace production from declining wells, many of which have been in production for more than 50 years.

We consume four barrels of oil for every one that we find, and that disparity is widening. The world consumes about 81 million barrels of oil a day, and that consumption – fueled by giants like China and India – is growing every year. The common misconception is that the problems will begin when we run out of oil.

Simply divide the remaining oil, roughly 1.2 trillion barrels, by our current rate of consumption, and 40 years are left until we use the last drop. This formula is flawed for two reasons. First, it fails to take into account the fact that world demand for oil is growing. The second fallacy is that it assumes that it is possible to extract oil at the same rate until a given well is pumped dry. Under normal conditions, production from an oil well follows a bell-like curve. There is a peak production point on the curve and from there, the rate of extraction falls to zero – incapable of reaching its previous high. Entire regions follow the same pattern, and it is a near certainty that the world will as well.

World production of conventional oil peaked in 2005. Since then, unconventional sources, like offshore drilling, coupled with a downturn in demand due to the recession have forestalled the inevitable gap between supply and demand.

What does a decline in the availability of oil mean for us? Quite simply, further economic growth will not be possible, and we will start to see the global economy shrink and become more localized. Without an abundance of oil to manufacture pesticides and fertilizers, food production will plummet. Economic downturns that will make the recent crisis seem like a walk in the park are inevitable. This isn’t a rosy picture and, unfortunately, it isn’t even the half of it, but there are some things we can do to cushion the fall. On an individual level, we would be wise to make economic decisions based upon limited access to oil and gasoline in the future. Minimizing commutes and excessive driving as well as growing some of our own food (and buying locally) are a step in the right direction.

Even though Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has spent more of his career as a professor than as the nation’s top central banker, he insisted he wouldn’t lecture the nearly 175 college students gathered Monday for a question and answer session at the Rhode Island Convention Center.

“I’m not going to lecture to you,” Bernanke said. “What I’m going to do is take your questions.”

Bernanke addressed the students – who came from a number of colleges in Rhode Island – in a rotunda overlooking downtown Providence, the capital city of a state still reeling from the aftershocks of the financial crisis. Bernanke, who oversaw the Federal Reserve’s unprecedented steps to avert economic collapse, was also in town to deliver the keynote speech at the Rhode Island Public Expenditure Council’s annual dinner later Monday evening.

Brown students applied to attend the event through the Economics Department Undergraduate Group, which sent out an application asking students to answer why they would like to attend and to formulate questions for Bernanke. The department was so impressed with the quality of questions that more than 30 students were selected, rather than the 15 that were originally planned, according to Jason Yum.

The Brown students and others from across the state listened to answers from Bernanke on topics such as monetary policy and job prospects for students after graduation.

“You’re doing the right thing by training, by increasing your education,” Bernanke told the students. “Even though these are tough economic times, the return to learning, the return to developing your skills, is very high.”

Responding to a question from a student concerned about college debt, Bernanke pointed to the sizeable cost of his son’s medical school education but cited as a positive development the fact that “it’s much less often the case that young people are unable to get the education they want because they can’t get funding.”

The Federal Reserve chairman also answered questions regarding the central bank’s actions during the crisis and defended the Troubled Asset Relief Program and large-scale purchases of mortgage-backed securities as crucial to restoring stability to financial markets. Many people don’t realize that the Fed’s efforts stemmed from the need to protect the overall economy and not merely to prop up failing firms, Bernanke said.

“I thought a lot about Econ 101 during those days,” Bernanke said of the height of the 2008 crisis, adding that while TARP remains unpopular among the public, the money that has now been returned with interest made the program “a pretty good investment for taxpayers.” The Fed chief also said that the financial regulatory reform law passed earlier this year provides the government “new tools” to ensure that bankrupt firms do not pose a systemic risk to the economy.

But Bernanke had fewer specific answers when asked for “tips for investors” from a Brown student who would like to own his own investment firm.

Bernanke said he wasn’t in the business of betting on the stock market, and if he were, “it would probably be illegal anyway.”

“I get a lot of inside information,” Bernanke said, eliciting laughter from the crowd.

As parting advice, he counseled students to take advantage of educational opportunities and chances to get valuable on-the-job experience.

“I’m sorry the economy’s not stronger right now, but it will get stronger,” Bernanke said.

Although he felt Bernanke “dodged” his question, Ben Xiong still thought hearing the central banker speak was worthwhile.

“It was a really great experience to come and see someone that powerful,” Xiong said.

We’re facing a war — not on terrorism, not on drugs. This war concerns our right to privacy, and we’re losing. (A strikeout, for anyone keeping score.)

Last week, Tyler Clementi, a Rutgers U. freshman, committed suicide after his roommate and an accomplice illicitly broadcast footage of Clementi’s sexual encounter with another man. Tragically, this case isn’t unique. Clementi is one of an increasing number of students who have been victimized by cyberbullying via text, instant messenger and other media.

Technology can be used as a check on the abuse of power and, conversely, to viciously abuse someone. When breaches of privacy occur, where do we turn for regulation or sentencing?

Do we even have a right to privacy?

There’s no right to privacy in the Constitution. Not explicitly, that is. It’s within our capability to insert it, although, the Tea Party- trembling Democrats and the Eric Can’t-or (won’t) Republicans couldn’t collaborate to pass gas, much less an addition that bold.

An amended constitutional right to privacy could garner bipartisan support by assuaging conservatives’ desire for minimal government, while appeasing liberals by solidifying female autonomy over their bodies. Bipartisan or not, the complexity of privacy issues demands a constitutional framework.

An explicit, expansive, right to privacy couldn’t possibly account for all potential privacy violations in future technology. It’d be foolish to claim it could. However, we’d at least have parameters to work from, which could deter bullies like Clementi’s roommate by making privacy as sacrosanct as free speech.

Instead, we live in a legal vacuum. Our privacy rights hinge in the courtroom on the whims of a single judge. Gridlocked legislatures are unable to keep pace with rapid technological growth, so our judicial system weathers the challenge. Yet even judges are ill-equipped to confront these issues with no clear precedent or constitutional relevance.

Closer to home, a Maryland man was recently acquitted after filming a routine traffic pullover. “[Circuit Court Judge Emory] Plitt cited the videotaped recording of the Rodney King beating in Los Angeles and the explosion of ‘rapid fire information technology’ to note that virtually anyone in a public place should expect their actions could be recorded and broadcast,” according to the Baltimore Sun.

Important clarification: rights to privacy shouldn’t be blanket. Public figures should forfeit much of their privacy. And while police should have reasonable rights to record, citizens should be afforded a comparable level for their protection.

Even closer to home, the Obama administration is expected to advocate for expansion of wiretapping (Skype, Facebook, etc.) according to The New York Times. “The bill, which the Obama administration plans to submit to lawmakers next year, raises fresh questions about how to balance security needs with protecting privacy and fostering innovation.” Under the guise of national security and without a constitutional impediment, he will likely have as much trouble as LeBron James dunking. Not the kind of ‘change’ I was ‘hoping’ for.

Privacy issues permeate our daily lives and no attention is being paid to assess the root of the problem. As essential as a detailed right to privacy in the Constitution is, it needs to be augmented by an evolving standard of decency. A privacy amendment should designate different standards to distinguish public officials, celebrities, regular Joe’s, etc.

Privacy rights are complex, and while there’s no universal definition, you can’t build a house before you lay the foundation.

One of my readers criticized after my last column that I write about sex but not enough about safety. Even though I’ve written on safe sex last semester, I should include important information about safe sex again. I agree.

I can’t give details in every column, but each semester brings new students, and each student who decides to be sexually active needs to be aware that what is fun can quickly turn into a life-changing disaster.

We always like to think about the positive things that intimacy brings: affection, passion, desire and satisfaction. But sex is primarily something that most college students don’t want at this young age: reproduction. Even when you’re young, in love and just want to have fun, having sex can change your life forever.

Imagine the following: You spend a comfortable night at home with your partner, cuddle up to him, watch a movie, start kissing and making out. You really want to sleep with him, but you don’t have a condom. Maybe, as a girl, you think you can’t conceive at the moment because you just had your period and are not ovulating yet. Or, as a guy, you think you can just mess around a little but not go through with it until the end. Next thing you know, you’re standing in the drugstore buying a pregnancy test because you, or your girlfriend, are late. Your life could just have changed forever.

Even if you are pro-choice and decide to have an abortion (which everyone should decide for themselves, not for someone else), it will affect you for the rest of your life. Every woman I heard about who had an abortion described it as one of the worst decisions they ever had to make.

Whatever option you choose after getting pregnant, it will be worse than worrying about safe sex. But it affects everyone who is sexually active, whether man or woman.

Which brings me to another question: Who is responsible for safety, men or women? Some say women because they bear the consequences of getting pregnant. They should use the pill, vaginal ring or any of the other options for women. Some say men because they wear the condoms and only condoms can prevent both pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.

There is only one right answer: both. Those who make the decision to have sex also make the decision to prevent pregnancy and infection.

I recently talked to a male friend about a woman’s options of birth control. I asked him what he thought would be the best option for women. But he referred me to a female friend for that kind of conversation. I wondered if that reaction was due to lack of interest or lack of information.

In the end, knowing what possibilities women have for birth control also affects men because it saves both from negative consequences. Don’t think of women as “the responsible ones” or those who “take care of it.” We can all make mistakes or be negligent. But this negligence can quickly lead to pain and suffering. It can change your life forever.

Les Miles must be a thrill-seeking junkie. It’s the only explanation for his complete and utter disregard for the clock late in football games.

For the second time in less than a year, Miles threw caution to the wind and watched the clock trickle down to nothing while his offense and his quarterback looked on in confused disbelief.

When LSU had first-and-goal at the Tennessee 2-yard line with 36 seconds remaining, it seemed like a given. You call four plays and say, “Just line up and run them until you cross the goal line or run out of downs. Just make sure you don’t run out of time. And at first that seemed to be the plan.

Junior quarterback Jarrett Lee ran a play action pass on first down. When his target fell, he chunked the ball into oblivion.

So far, so good. There were 32 seconds left, and LSU had second-and-goal from the 2-yard line. It looked like maybe Miles no longer needed a thrill to survive.

But Miles needed a fix. He needed a thrill to quell the tweaking from within.

He ran Jordan Jefferson on a quarterback keeper that gained nothing and kept the clock running. Then with precious time slipping away, he stalled, knowing he had the entire situation under control.

Finally, following some baffling personnel substitutions, the Tigers were ready to snap the ball. The snap sailed over Jefferson’s head, and the clock expired. Tennessee charged the field, celebrating like a guest on “Maury” who has just been informed he’s not the father.

But Les stayed calm, mainlining his thrill. He knew this one was still in the bag.

And when the yellow hankie from heaven granted Les’ boys one final play, he let junior running back Stevan Ridley punch it in to give the Tigers the win.

When interviewed after the game, Miles slyly told CBS sideline reporter Tracy Wolfson the game was “just another day in the SEC.”

For those who follow LSU football, it was.

For the second time in five games this season, the outcome of a game came down to the final play from scimmage.

And don’t forget last season’s “Mississippi Mishap” when the Tigers’ mismanaged the clock and ran out of time before trying for a potential game winning field goal or final throw into the endzone. But Saturday was a thrill ride of its own.

LSU came into the game as the superior team and a huge favorite. We scored on the first play from scrimmage and appeared to be beginning a dominating victory.

Tennessee was a week off an overtime win at home against Alabama-Birmingham and had shown few signs of improvement since the beginning of the season.

Despite the Tigers’ continued offensive struggles, they were in a more than fortuitous situation to win.

They nearly let it slip away because of poor communication and a seeming lack of game planning.

Nonetheless, the Tigers escaped Saturday afternoon with a win. They currently sit at 5-0 and are ranked in the top 10.

But there are a few bigger questions that still weigh heavily upon my mind.

Is Les Miles just a thrill-seeking junkie? Is there a method to his madness? Does he do this to us on purpose?

I wish I had an answer for these questions. But much like Saturday afternoon in the stands, I’m speechless, confused and stunned all at the same time.

A 2010 report by the Lumina Foundation for Education listed West Virginia as the state with the fewest college graduates among residents between the ages of 25 and 64.

Only 11.7 percent of the working population holds a bachelor’s degree, 7 percent hold a graduate or professional degree and 6.8 percent hold an associates degree. This translates to only one out of every 4 residents, or 25.5 percent of the population, have post secondary education.

In West Virginia, 19.9 percent of the population attended college but did not graduate, and 54.4 percent of the population has earned a high school degree or less.

The most educated counties in the state are Monongalia, Jefferson and Putnam, with residents with two or four year degree rates of 43.4 percent, 37.3 percent and 34.1 percent.  The least educated counties are McDowell, Lincoln and Boone with rates of 10.3 percent, 14.1 percent and 14.1 percent.

Of the states that border West Virginia, only Kentucky, with a degree rate of 29.2 percent, ranks in the bottom 10 states for education.  Maryland ranks in the top 10 with 43.9 percent of adults with college degrees, and Virginia is 11th on the list with 43.4 percent of adults with college degrees.

Rob Anderson, senior director of policy and planning at the West Virginia Higher Education Policy Commission, attributes part of this problem to demographics.  He said census data shows there are fewer high school age students than there used to be, and although the graduation rate has held steady, fewer students are graduating.

Frances S. Hensley, associate vice president for Academic Affairs, said in the past year Marshall has been busy getting a number of initiatives underway to aid students in earning their degrees. Among these initiatives is reducing the minimum number of credit hours from 128 to 120 to graduate.  This applies to incoming students, although returning students can change their course load with the approval of their college dean, Hensley said.  Incoming students no longer take University 101, which has been replaced with a more academically rounded course.

“Students are now taking First Year Seminar,” Hensley said. “In the course, students are getting an academic class with a focus on critical thinking. In the first year seminar, students are introduced to writing intensive as well as multicultural and international thinking, plus working with ‘embedded’ librarians who help students learn to research.”

Hensley said the reasons students don’t graduate are varied.  Several students are the first in their family to go to college. Some cannot come back for financial reasons, but the culture of West Virginia may be the biggest obstacle.

“Traditionally, one could get a solid high paying job right out of high school, but that is disappearing quickly,” Hensley said.

Lumina used U.S. Census data to compile its report.  Lumina is a private independent foundation whose goal is to increase educational access beyond high school.

For the 20 percent of the working population with some college but no degree, the Regents Bachelors of Arts program helps adults with some credit hours earn degrees within an accelerated and flexible time frame.  Lumina gave an $800,000 Adult Learner Grant to the West Virginia Higher Education Policy commission to enhance this program.

“Funds will be used to enhance academic content as well as enhance campus services as they pertain to adult students,” Anderson said.  “These students often must interact with personnel during non-traditional hours due to work schedules, and issues such as this one will be addressed.”

Hensley said the benefits of education exceed just economic benefits, and contribute to people making better choices all around.  The correlation between being the least educated, but also holding the nation’s highest obesity and smoking rates are hard to miss, he said.

“Hands All Over,” Maroon 5’s latest album, rarely strays from the styles with which the band has achieved so much success. Its best numbers are not particularly memorable and have a sort of paint-by-numbers feel, but familiarity is better than the few times Adam Levine and company dare to try something new.

“Out of Goodbyes,” the band’s collaboration with Lady Antebellum, is sure to have its fans, but it seems weirdly jarring when compared to the rest of the album.  The only song that screams “legendary” like “Harder to Breathe” or “This Love” is “Misery,” the album’s first single and the catchiest song.

Maroon 5 is at its best when it sticks to what it knows. Their outrageously sensual, guitar-driven funk is fantastic, but the ballads are surprisingly slow and nothing, save for “Misery,” is particularly thrilling. Sadly enough for Maroon 5 fans everywhere, “Hands All Over” probably wasn’t worth the three-year wait.

Rating: 2/4 stars