Photograph by Sahir Khan

What does love have to do with us today – aspiring college students – whose canvases may have no plans for another’s paint? To what extent are our amorous pursuits a necessary distraction from the ordinary? And further, what then of our individual dreams and ambitions? Do they wither away in the face of love?

Some think so. They think when you let love linger, you lose a part of yourself. So they avoid it, worried for their independence. I think they’ve already lost it through fear. For if they let love’s danger direct them only away from it, they’re living by default and without a full heart.

It’s true love can be like a drug. Its thin waft may dilate our mind’s eye – and in a blink – we become something else. We may act strangely under its influence, victims of some unfamiliar endorphin sequence. It can be a revolving door, its vectors leaving as soon they arrive.

But we were born from it, that love, our conception impeccably timed – forged of its fires and tempered in the eye of its storm. They say every life is a miracle. Why then should we spurn the same synchronous forces which engendered us? Just as we should not settle in choosing a partner, we should not dismiss love at the door on principal alone. That’s when love lingers.

This does not mean we should compromise our upward trajectory on the mere chance of love. Without discretion, it may drive us downward, perpetuating our vices. Rather, we can invest in love without gambling on it. We do it by investing in ourselves. It will yield a better, more attractive crop. The universe will decide when it’s ripe.

A calculus professor once spoke to me about her subject:

“Where you are isn’t all that important.

It is, but it’s only a relative point. It’s where you’re headed that’s important.”

Perhaps we really can wander around without knowing the exact coordinates of our destination. As long as we head the right direction, love may serve to complement our life experience, not trespass against it. We need not follow love around, as true love is not forced. It can find us effortlessly, folded in the darkest basement or crowning the most majestic plateau. Therefore, let us compel it to flourish in our slipstream as we ascend to the sky.

When we unite with love, we show concern for its welfare, not for the ways it may impede our personal progress. Only we can do that. Not love. Not that same love our dreams very much rely upon to thrive. Kahlil Gibran’s “The Prophet” speaks on the acoustics of love as it resonates between partners:

“Fill each other’s cup but drink not from the same cup.

For the pillars of the temple stand apart, and the oak tree and the cypress grow not in each other’s shadow.”

So how do you speak of love? Do you do it with a smile? Do you swear it off through a clenched and drunken jaw? Do you scramble it in the frequencies of a cell phone transmission? Does a computer screen light the way for you to type its name after the city goes to sleep?

I say you do it with purpose – with maturity. You do it with love for yourself.

Without that, where are we headed anyway?

All my life I’ve had a strange fascination with unidentified flying objects and the possibility of aliens. I guess any interest in them could be considered strange. Steven Hawking, world-renowned physicist, discounts reports of UFOs saying, “We don’t appear to have been visited by aliens. Why would they only appear to cranks and weirdos?”

My intrigue surged a few years ago. I was showing my uncle some pictures when he blindsided me with a simple question: “What difference does it make?”

I didn’t have an answer. This bewilderment typifies the empty-handed search for proof of the origin and even existence of UFOs. After a couple of years, I still don’t know, but I can finally respond to him. The representation of extraterrestrial objects throughout history, in any medium, makes an argument about their potential culture and in doing so puts ours in its place, regardless of whether or not you’re a believer. And so, the relative nature of our planet and the life it contains can teach us a great deal.

Aboriginal lore talked of “Sky Beings,” and while it’s debatable that they were observing UFOs, it’s worth noting that aberrations in the sky have long been documented by man.

These curiosities are illustrated in cave drawings and hieroglyphics throughout history. Otherwise normal landscapes of man and beast are marked with anomalous figures, completely out of context with the rest of the pictures. Much has changed since they were fresh works of art, but such figures remain no more consistent with our currently constructed reality.

The only modern day pictures of “UFOs” are often inopportunely filmed. They’re out of focus, smeared all over the frame or appearing as just a blip. With today’s technology, why does the best available device always seem to be a low grade cell phone camera?

The ethereal candor of UFOs in so many instances is what makes people question their existence. Say just one of these thousands of images in circulation is authentic. Is it not fitting these airships would be just evasive enough to elude such a relatively primitive mode of photography? Would it make sense that after eons of ambiguity, they are suddenly so readily able to be observed?

For many, seeing is believing. But if you haven’t seen one, how do you know what it’s not? How would you know what to look for? In this case, the real paradox seems to be the pragmatics of continually identifying something as “unidentified.” When does it become something more? Our refusal to consider a transition is a digression of man’s lexicon.

Billions of dollars in brainpower and technology have gazed deep into the universe. What have we learned? Earth is unique. It’s been described as one of the galaxy’s finest, ripest zoological gardens. This analogy casts us as only animals, but do we have the humility to accept that label? If not, we’ve reached a point of complacency wherein we think we’re exempt from our own definitions. And so, the cosmic zookeepers remain hung in the skies, passively waiting, while we turn the other cheek and swim about our fishbowl.

Religions are based on written and oral testimony of seemingly supernatural events, resting solely on the credibility of their authors. Sound familiar? I would argue in this regard, memes of any spiritual dogma can be similar to those of UFOlogical nature. Curiously, the two are not always mutually exclusive, sometimes blatantly overlapping. The following are just a few of the many Christian artworks to contain UFO types: “The Madonna with Saint Giovannino,” 15th Century; “The Baptism of Christ,” painted in 1710; “Annales Laurissenses,” 12th century manuscript.

Like the atheist who bases his godless convictions against only the religious theodicies he rejects, why should a man limit his understanding of UFOs to earthly constructs? We still use rocket fuel to plod through our solar system. There has to be a better way.

Wired magazine’s Jonah Lehrer brilliantly makes this sentiment: “The fundamental point is that modern science has made little progress toward any unified understanding of everything. Our unknowns have not dramatically receded. It’s not that we don’t have all the answers. It’s that we don’t even know the question. Together, physics and neuroscience seek to solve the most ancient and epic of unknowns: What is everything? And who are we?”

Until we give serious thought to the implications of UFO presence throughout history, providing ourselves a celestial point of reference, we might be grasping at straws to answer those questions.

Truth be told, UFOs have been depicted imperfectly. We can’t get a clear shot, and their sandy presence narrowly slips through our fingers as we struggle to place them within the scope of our intellect. If they wanted us gone, we’d have been gone long ago. Instead, they observe us like we might an ant farm. Only we’re not ants. We realize our own existence. We can achieve the abstract.

This planet is the greatest gift we’ve inherited. Like toddlers, we’ve hardly begun to walk, and we’re running out of reasons not to. That’s why this is important. It’s much more than an image or belief. It’s a philosophy. Man needs a reason to unite — that is, take the first leap of faith to acknowledge every life in the universe as part of the same cosmic tapestry.

In his last interview, Robert Dean, retired USAF Sergeant Major, left us with this:

“None of this is an accident. The human species — the human race — in spite of its orneriness, is a beautiful race. And it has a future. I have a deep, deep belief that in time, we’re going to go out there and take our rightful place. Where we began, our home in the stars …”

Even the University is keeping pace with Twitter’s popularity. From news to sports, the University’s “tweets” feature campus updates and facility information, such as the football team’s ranking or Middleton’s hours of operation.

Weeding through the spam, advertisements and drama-laced muck that comprises much of the Web site renders it more of a hassle than benefit. If you choose not to attend class, read broadcast e-mails, subscribe to the University’s emergency text message system, pick up The Daily Reveille or even remotely engage yourself in campus happenings, Twitter is another way to beat information into your head.

It’s reminiscent of putting a nail gun to your skull and plugging away.

Tweeting is simple. Users, or “tweeple,” build a page through micro blogging, much like a compilation of brief text messages sent via phone or the Internet. Posting entails virtually anything: You can learn what your favorite celebrity is eating for breakfast or what your legislator is watching on YouTube. You can pester friends with a frame-by-frame description of your day, and even “follow” the tweets of your choice.

We thrive on instant-gratification, but Twitter is an over-stimulating abuse of “staying in touch.” No one should be subjected to the endless stream of updates, whether from friend or foe. No one should voluntarily subscribe to such whining and blathering. Twitter is Facebook’s narcissistic twin, and recent research predicts Twitter’s numbers will reach 18 million users by the end of the year.

Twitter is a modern aristocracy. Power rests in the hands of the marketing-savvy. They dictate what information is worthwhile, and we are blindly subscribing to their agendas. I can understand why the University would branch out to students who depend on tweets to stay informed (I’m sure these same people consult Wikipedia for research papers), but my beef is with what Twitter has become.

We consider ourselves to be a Flagship University. Instead of focusing on plunging grade point averages and 6-year graduation plans, University officials have entrenched themselves in what their next tweet will state. We have a scapegoat for all those wasted hours, superficial social lives and defunct IQs.

Sayonara, top-tier ranking.

The Harvard Business Review reported that 10 percent of Twitter users create 90 percent of the total tweets. Instead of fostering widespread user communication, Twitter distinguishes itself as a publishing outlet for cyber vomit. The report additionally found the median number of lifetime tweets per user to be only one. Half of users tweet less than once every 74 days.

Let’s cut ourselves off now.

Carolyn Garrity, a PhD student from LSU’s marketing department, believes that social media sites like Twitter are “a force in marketing” and shouldn’t be completely dispelled. Although “no expert in social media,” Garrity doesn’t believe Twitter is always an effective tool for organizations. Pages must be maintained and expectations must be realistic, she says.

Perhaps there’s a solution to this madness. Twitter can spare us some agony and screen potential users. We can knock off the self-indulgent ranks of teenyboppers and semi-socialites alike with a single click. It’s simple, really. Twitter can join the ranks of cyber-stalkers and follow the postings of potential users on Facebook, monitoring pictures and texts. If they have no social value, then tweeting should be forbidden.

Let the songbirds keep their tweets. Keep the crows from dribbling more waste on the Web. So please, do society a favor, keep your hands and tweets to yourself.

These students are being taken advantage of, especially when you compare the cost of a meal plan at LSU to the prices of meal plans at other universities in the Southeastern Conference. Ten of the 12 SEC universities have a mandatory meal plan system in place. Guess who charges the most per meal? Our fair Louisiana State University.

A first-year student at LSU that purchases the Tiger Lite plan — the cheapest of the meal plans offered to first-year students who live on campus — pays $9.47 per meal. In comparison, first-year students at the University of Florida who purchase the Open-Access 5 Day plan — the cheapest of any meal plan offered there — pay an average of only $3.79 per meal.

But the differences don’t stop there. A first-year student at LSU who purchases the Resident Tiger plan — the most expensive of any meal plan offered to first-year students who live on campus — gets a small break, but still pays $8.28 per meal. That still pales in comparison to all other conference universities where the most expensive meal plans have prices ranging from $3.25 to $7.36 per meal.

Students aren’t just being unfairly treated in comparison to other SEC universities. Those students with meal plans will always pay the same set price—between $8.28 and $9.47, depending on the plan— for every meal. However, anyone without a plan will pay only $5.71 for breakfast or $8.77 for lunch at the 459 Dining Hall.

Jason Tolliver, director of University auxiliary services, said meal plans are mandated “because of [the University’s] fundamental belief that good nutrition is essential to our students’ academic success.”

Demanding that a student pay a premium price to eat is unjust when you consider the hours of operation for the dining halls. If the University was so concerned about “good nutrition,” dining halls wouldn’t close at 7 p.m. Monday through Thursday, and 4:30 p.m. on Friday.

What options are left after the dining halls close? McDonald’s, Papa Johns, Taco Bell and Chick-fil-A remain open and offer limited menus. Talk about good nutrition.

Students get to gorge themselves on Big Macs, waffle fries, and beef burritos when the weekend comes because it’s part of LSU’s plan to provide “balance to students,” according to Tolliver.

Tolliver clearly didn’t review the National Institute of Health’s studies showing that eating fast food more than twice per week puts healthy young adults at risk for excessive weight gain and type-2 diabetes.

Tolliver also makes an argument that dining halls help students meet new people. But is that really necessary?

Beyond seeing new people in dorms and classes, campus life allows for regular interaction with fellow classmates. Late Night at LSU, tailgating and inner-residential hall activities provide many social opportunities to meet people and forge new bonds.

The University should allow all students the opportunity to forgo their meal plan. At the very least, they should come up with a plan to lower prices to closer match other schools in the SEC. Another option would be to keep dining halls open longer. As it is, LSU is demanding an exorbitant price for an unsatisfactory product. LSU Dining should cater the students, not its own bank account.

*All prices do not include commuter or unlimited plans, and don’t include tax. 459 Dining Hall prices don’t include tax. All SEC meal plan information was obtained from each Universities dining Web site.

Photograph by Benjamin Oliver Hicks