I see a lot of tenured writers publishing articles about “personal brand.” They write about how it is important to be proper on social media sites. They write about the significance of networking. They write about resumes.

I think you should ignore them. They’re old.

As Generation X graduated college, corporations weren’t hiring people. They were hiring interchangeable parts. A personal brand meant having “voice” in a cover letter. In their time, jobs grew on trees. In ours, we’ve got to be competitive and learn how to stand out.

The employment game is changing faster than ever. Personally, I’m not going to take advice from those playing in their fourth quarter. We’re the free agents of the new economy, and it’s up to us to redefine what it means to be successful in today’s America.

Sometimes being successful will require more than just a personal brand. It might involve operating as your own public relations firm. That’s what Matthew Epstein did.

Epstein is a young product manager and digital strategist in California that wanted to work for Google. So, he created www.GooglePleaseHire.Me. “Google Please Hire Me” was a full advertising campaign featuring his candidacy. The site is designed to look like the Google interface with a full-length commercial, which is a four minute YouTube video with a clever script and professional-level production quality. It has more than a half-million views.

Epstein didn’t end up working for Google. However, he accepted an offer from a San Francisco start-up called SigFig. According to his blog, he also turned down offers from “two household-name tech companies.”

Graeme Anthony is a PR professional in England. Graeme created an interactive video resume that allows potential employers to navigate through different video clips featuring his skills and experience. The string of videos made BBC News and received international attention. Soon after, he noted on his YouTube channel that he had been hired.

The bar has been raised for job seekers everywhere. Throughout our careers as students we’ve been asked to get good grades, construct one-page resumes and attend career fairs. We’ve been assured this is the path to an accomplished career. However, it is obvious that success comes from doing the things we’re not asked to do.

The reason we are not regularly asked to do things that are creative and outstanding is this: Creativity and outstanding can’t be systematized. The traditional hiring process is very much a system, and it is the only possible way to handle thousands of applicants at a time. Unfortunately, it degrades each candidate to a single piece of paper in a tall stack on a recruiter’s desk. Is that how you want to be evaluated when your career and livelihood are on the line? I don’t think so.

In 1997, Tom Peters wrote an article in Fast Company called “The Brand Called You.” At that time, the mainstream media was focused on the rising stock market and fast-growing corporations. In 1996, corporate merger and acquisition activity had set all-time records.

Despite all that hype, Peters emphasized an arguably more important trend. He recognized a shift in how individuals — not businesses — would be able to better operate in the rapidly changing and growing economy. His point was that people were suddenly given the tools to become their own “brand.”

What was allowing this to happen? Peters cited the emerging Internet, and of course “that other killer app of the Net – email.” The Internet in 1997, while primitive, allowed professionals to open communication channels across the world and showcase portfolios and resumes to large audiences.

If Peters was excited in 1997 about the Internet affecting the job market, we should be ecstatic in 2011. Personal websites, YouTube channels and Twitter accounts are all highly effective ways to display how awesome you are.

But why is this so critical? Why is it important to stand out? To be concise, there are fewer jobs to go around.

Forbes published a report in 2009 stating that computers and technology are increasingly replacing “middle man” jobs. We are seeing that as a very consequential reality today. No longer can you coast through your schoolwork and grab a menial accounting job. QuickBooks does those jobs now. No longer can you take your pick of the abundant sales assistant jobs that used to exist. Salesforce.com does those jobs now.

Job market anxiety has reached peak levels. Any day of the week you can turn on the news and hear analysts talk about how bad our job market is. It’s hard to walk across campus without overhearing a conversation between graduating seniors that are nervous about their future.

So who’s getting hired? Matthew Epstein and Graeme Anthony are. People who can adequately and creatively advertise themselves are not only getting hired, companies are approaching them.

You don’t have professional video equipment or computer science experience? Don’t fret. Do a simple Google search on “infographic resumes.” Don’t let anyone tell you resumes have to be one page, Times New Roman, 12 point black font on white paper. Resumes can be designed, and those that are can be a huge asset to their owners.

The age of average is over. Average can’t compete in our new economy. You have to be good at what you do, and you have to be good at making people realize you’re good.

Jay Z said, “Remind yourself: Nobody built like you, you design yourself.”

Every generation is known for some sort of economic change. Will our legacy be excellence and innovation? Time will tell. In the meantime, let’s go make some money.

This woman, a “southern belle,” fits a stereotype, and it’s this stereotype that is still pervasive in so many depictions of southern women. The image, however romantic, simply isn’t relevant anymore. In fact, it’s stifling and judgemental. Studies and common sense show that this example represents very few of the real southern women.

According to the 2000 Census, more than half the United States’  black population lives in the South, comprising 20 percent of the South’s total population.

Take a look back at some popular movies, such as “Friday Night Lights,” “The Dukes of Hazzard” or “Big Fish,” and you’ll see the women in those films represent the southern belle stereotype above.

It would make sense for movie producers and TV show directors to want to take the Census information into account when portraying a southern belle to reach a broader audience, right? Well, according to the Clark Doll Experiment, it’s not necessary.

In this popular 1947 case study, children of both African and Caucasian descent were asked to pick the good, nice and, most importantly, pretty doll from an identically shaped pair, one white and the other, black. It was found that the white doll was generally picked in association with those positive adjectives, no matter the race of the participating child.

In 2006, Kiri Davis repeated the experiment and found similar results, despite our society’s outward efforts to eliminate discrimination against skin color. This is merely one example of how society has distorted our view of beauty to exclude what people may view as “different,” or in the minority.

We cannot simply blanket something such as the idea of a southern belle over an entire culture and expect all southern women to abide by its appearance. To force an idea of beauty on any one person as the only view of beauty is to kill something else beautiful. Unfortunately, that kind of extermination happens daily.

Take Nigeria for example.  Voluptuous, Nigerian women who were curvy were considered the most beautiful by their peers. Nigeria annually participated in the Miss World competition, and before 2001, they annually failed to have their women recognized as beautiful by the rest of the world.

Guy Murray-Bruce, whose family created the Silverbird Group, s one of the largest entertainment businesses in Nigeria and throughout Africa, presented the strategy to pick a woman who would represent Nigeria internationally instead of nationally. Nigeria, therefore, selected a tall, thin woman, like the models in the European Union and the United States. Her name was Agbani Darego, and she immediately won the Miss World title.

There should never be a standard for beauty. The unique beautiful qualities of every woman should be cherished and never changed in order to appease societal pressures.

The world is beautiful because it is a world of variety. Without variety, everything would be bland. We should never strive for sameness, for with uniformity, comes monotony. But, unfortunately, we do strive for sameness.  Women who do not have a generally similar look to the southern belle, such as women with boy-short hair cuts or simply women who just dress differently, in a way that stands out from the rest, are typically scorned by the Baton Rouge public.

We must learn, as a community, to open our idea of the beautiful southern belle to a more free form, one that is not constricted or defined by such stiff standards as the one we currently have. This applies to not only to our hometown, but all places where judgment rules over and oppresses personal creativity and expression of self through one’s physicality. Change has to start somewhere, sometime, so why not here and now?

Today’s generation of college students is lazy, immoral and too glued to technology for its own good.

Or at least that’s what your parents want you to believe.

According to a recent in-depth study by Pew Research Center, however, teens and twenty-somethings have begun to formulate their own generational bearings — ones that differ greatly from the one-dimensional views assigned to them by old-fashioned baby boomers.

Today’s young adults — better known as the Millennial generation, which comprises anyone born after 1980, according to Pew — are statistically more accepting, open to change and self-expressive.

Oh, and they’re quickly becoming smarter, too.

“Millennials are on course to become the most educated generation in American history,” Pew’s report says.

The study shows the percentage of 18 to 24-year-olds attending college is at an all-time high, a remarkable fact for a generation more frequently associated with iPhones, Facebook and “Jersey Shore” than academics.

Look at the adjectives Pew selected to mold the title of its findings: “Millennials: Confident. Connected. Open to Change.”

Babies of the past 30 years have grown into more socially adept adults because of the wider array of technology and the more progressive political attitudes that dominate today’s youth. Millennials are inventing new ways to communicate (guess which generation Facebook founder Mark Zuckerburg belongs to) and ushering society into an era in which tolerance and optimism are at the forefront.

Perhaps this optimism is also what’s bringing young adults to the polls more often.

The gap between younger voters and older ones (age 30 and higher) is at its smallest since 1972, the first year 18-year-olds were granted the right to vote. According to Pew, the percentage of young adults who turned out to vote in the 2000 presidential election was a mediocre 40. It jumped to 49 percent in the 2004 election. In 2008, it was 51 percent.

If the trajectory continues, just imagine what young-voter turnout will look like by the time a new president is in control of the Oval Office.

Still think “American Idol” is the only voting opportunity young adults care about?

Think again.

In fact, nearly the same number of Millennials say they vote for “Idol” (20 percent) as Gen Xers and Baby Boomers do (18 percent).

The reason for the slight disparity? It’s probably because Millennials know how to work phones better.

Say what you will about today’s youth, but one thing our generation will never be plagued with is an inability to keep up with the times. Technology and media are evolving more rapidly today than they were 40 years ago, conditioning adolescents to think more progressively than their older counterparts.  It seems, therefore, that individuals born after 1980 won’t have to suffer from the lag in modern-day thinking that beleaguers technologically inept adults.

The generation is also blessed with a benevolence that older ones lack. The racial problems that afflict generations of yore are far removed from the radars of today’s accepting youth, and a lot of that can be attributed to the wider, more fast-paced cultural exposure granted to adolescents via TV and the Internet.

So why don’t Millennials issue older generations a unanimous reality check?

Today’s emerging business leaders, teachers, engineers and countless other professionals — all of whom will be able to incorporate the Internet more effectively than any other generation — can shake their heads at the antiquated doctrines that equate youthfulness with belligerence.

What our generation can provide is exactly what society needs: an attitude adjustment.

Regardless of positions on any political spectrum, Millennials’ openness to change and advancement is their single greatest attribute. Millennials can eradicate the innate racism and stereotyping that have become staples of older twentieth-century generations and use their new outlooks to encourage bipartisanship.

It’s time for change, and it doesn’t have to come from any particular political leaders.

It can come from us.

Photo illustration by Bowei Wang

BY MATTHEW JACOBS

Masculinity has long been associated with a vast array of paradigms and images. To some, a true man is the breadwinner, the head of the household, the hunter. To others, manhood revolves around business and vitality.

But what is masculinity really? Is it simply about anatomy, or do you have to “bring home the bacon” to qualify as a real man? If a guy has never cleaned a rifle, fixed a leaky radiator or built a campfire, does he lose “man points”?

Popular Mechanics lists all three of these “manly” activities on its list of 25 Skills Every Man Should Know, released in 2009. Also on the list: mix concrete, fix a dead outlet and paddle a canoe. Guys, are you keeping track of your tally? Are you masculine enough to pass the magazine’s test?

American society has adopted an attitude that equates much of the ideals of manhood with ruggedness. We associate masculinity with football fields and high-power occupations, and anything less than that is often considered effeminate. We have built up insipid perceptions of what jobs are appropriate for men to hold, what cars they can drive and what clothes they can wear.

But now it’s 2011, and while more progressive attitudes toward masculinity have certainly become copious since the start of the new millennium, it’s about time we stop belittling men by creating one-note expectations of their personas.

Society’s treatment of women is often critiqued, with both the workplace and the bedroom being chastised for not giving the female population its right of way. Yet factions of American culture still instantly equate the sleek, stylish man with homosexuality, and it seems a bit disenchanting that a man — regardless of his sexuality — can’t shop well and live well without his loyalty to his gender coming into question.

When media portrayals are juxtaposed with real-world expectations, it seems only Hollywood can produce a sophisticated, contemporary man without facing the tribulation of being judged based on the way he represents his sex. Why is it only acceptable for Brad Pitt — whose sexuality clearly never draws debate — to don high-style fashions with kids in tow?

We have produced an image of the ad man, seen in sensual TV commercials for alcohol and fashion and in respectable magazines like GQ and Esquire. Imagine the 2011 version of Mad Men’s Don Draper. The ad man is nothing less than dashing and modish, and he can sell a product or push a trend with almost no effort.

But when the ad man leaves the world of glossy magazines and enters life outside Hollywood elitism, people often deplete his masculinity scale, and needlessly crude jokes about his seemingly questionable sexuality come into play.

Considering today’s acerbic economic climate, men are also being forced to take on more ostensibly feminine jobs. According to a recent article in Newsweek entitled “We Need to Reimagine Masculinity,” “Men’s share of the labor force has declined from 70 percent in 1945 to less than 50 percent today.” I would be anxious to find a statement more representative of the expanding scope of gender concepts than that.

I can only hope, as gender expectations broaden, that it will become perfectly acceptable for a man to elect to be a kindergarten teacher without facing judgment or ridicule — or trading in his man points.

I’m not sure when or why these attitudes entered the forefront of culture, but they’re grossly outdated. The fact that modernity conflicts with masculinity in anyone’s eyes at all is the antithesis of the progressive society the American landscape requires.

After all, gender representations — be they masculine or feminine — are purely constructs. There is no such thing as masculinity or femininity as people commonly analyze it. Only through overly judgmental human nature has society fabricated such idealizations, and it’s about time we eradicate them before old-school thinkers are left in the dust and the “progressive” male becomes the standard.

In short, it’s time to stop judging one another based on wardrobes, grooming patterns, occupations or even the ability to change a flat. While Popular Mechanics’ list contains 25 valuable skills sure to come in handy for anyone, it does not contain the definition of manhood because such a definition does not exist.

There is no rating system for manliness. No two men should be compared to each other in order to conclude which one represents the true American man.

It’s time for the paradigm of masculinity to completely shift away from these stuck-in-autopilot constructs and into reflections of new-millennium modernity.

So don’t be left behind. The elegant man might overtake the workplace and the bedroom, if everyone doesn’t catch up.

After all, what guy — burly or otherwise — doesn’t covet Brad Pitt’s life?

Photography by Tabitha Austin

The human body is omnivorous by design, able to handle both meat and plant-based foods. So when exactly did our culture become so meat focused? One hundred years ago, meat was nearly a delicacy, too expensive to be part of our three daily meals.

In this sea of meat, it’s no wonder that those who choose to abstain from meat are seen as outsiders.

Those who practice veganism or vegetarianism in all its different forms are tossed into one of those odd cultural offshoots, easily brushed away as those evangelical groups screaming about eternal damnation in Free Speech Plaza.

What seems to be overlooked is that people choose to abstain from meat and animal products for many reasons. People assume vegetarians and vegans are simply tree-hugging animal lovers.

To clarify: Vegans are those who abstain completely from meat and foods created with animal products. This means no eggs, cheese, milk, gelatins – anything involving animals.

Vegetarians abstain from meat products depending on preference. There are lacto-vegetarians (who can have milk, but not eggs, for example), and ovo-lacto vegetarians (who can eat animal products such a dairy, honey and eggs), to name a few. There are also several religions that include vegetarianism as part of their spiritual practices, including Buddhism, Jainism and Hinduism. Furthermore, many vegetarians abstain from meat for health purposes, since meat is known to contribute to heart disease and high cholesterol.

I personally struggle on a day to day basis to be an ovo-lacto vegetarian, which I began in May. It’s difficult going from an avid meat-eater to cutting it out of my diet completely. I still occasionally lapse with chicken and turkey, and I haven’t given up fish or seafood.

When I went home to visit my family, my brother remarked on my new dietary status: “This isn’t some animal-loving hippie thing, is it?” I’ve been asked some form of that question over the past months. “Oh, so you really like animals, right?” When did PETA start owning the rights to vegetarianism? Who said vegetarianism equals animal rights activism?

I have nothing against PETA or those animal lovers; I adore animals. But that’s not why I’m vegetarian. I care about what goes into the process of making my food and the impact it has on the environment. The meat industry is notorious for repeated violations of FDA code, and the rights of the workers in the meat industry are slim. Twenty years ago, the FDA performed around 40,000 food safety inspections. In 2007, they performed fewer than 9,000.

That isn’t to say there isn’t good meat out there. Or that meat is bad. Eating meat is a natural human process, ingrained in our very existence and one of the main reasons we evolved large brains to begin with. Animals eat other animals; it’s a fact of life.

Personally, though, I don’t care to eat meat if it has come from a feed lot where it stood knee-deep in its own feces while eating the ground-up bits of its former fellows.

The meat industry is disgusting and dirty. Until it’s been vastly reformed, I refuse to take part. We need to demand meat that is from sustainable sources that treat the workers and the animals fairly. Don’t we deserve quality meat? That is, if we choose to eat it, of course.

As far as the health benefits go, a “veg” diet doesn’t guarantee a healthy, slim body. The human body needs proteins, minerals and vitamins to keep running smoothly, kind of like how a car needs regular upkeep. The China Project, the largest study ever conducted regarding the relationship between diet and longevity, found there was a direct relationship between the amount of animal products in a diet and the levels of diseases such as diabetes and cancer.

Meat becomes a problem when it’s all we eat. Sausage and bacon biscuit for breakfast, fried chicken for lunch, beef stew for dinner. It’s no wonder we have record obesity, cholesterol problems and heart disease. America needs to reverse its meat-saturated sedentary lifestyle, and the only way is by demanding our food producers introduce variety and quality in our food options.

In the end, the key is moderation and acceptance. Because humans are omnivorous, it’s better to include some meat in your diet, but a balance has to be achieved between vegetables, fruits and meats. However, no diet is one-size-fits-all. We need to expand our public acceptance of vegetarian and veganism, introducing more options for them in a food culture virtually drowning in meat. After all, we weren’t designed to eat only what comes from a drive-thru every day.

Above all, we need to be aware of what goes into our bodies. Find out where your food comes from, and read the labels on the foods you buy in the grocery store.

So who wins the meat versus no-meat battle? Well, essentially neither, but education about what we put in our bodies is the best thing we can do in determining our health and well-being, spiritually, morally and physically.

Learn up and eat up, y’all.

Opinion columnist Emily Slack says “Chill Out!” Our generation is already taking on too much. Photograph by Grant Gutierrez

Success is measured by effort. Or so they say. These days, the average American life seems to follow this path: childhood, college, 50 years in a cubicle, retirement home in Florida.

The end. And for what?

That career spent in the cubicle is not so easily won, as most people work unbelievably hard to achieve their “perfect” career, and at what price is this achieved? We, as a nation, and especially as college students, are too stressed out.

All things considered, stress is a natural part of life. It ensures our survival in this rough and tumble world. Stress and its close companion– worry– keep us alert and concerned about our well-being, about our futures.

But are we overstressed, or is our current state of hamster-wheel running just the hand our generation was dealt?

I don’t know about how my fellow students are doing on the hamster wheel, but I’m horrendously out of breath. Yet when society progresses, stress increases. There are far more things to think (and worry) about when we know what’s going on in the world rather than in the microcosm of our lives. Increased stress is the price we pay for achievements of modern society.

As a college student, I wade through an inordinate amount of stress and worry.  I’m no different than the average young adult: school, grades, social life, discovering where the heck I belong in this world.

We go to college expecting a larger work load. We chose this stress for ourselves, so we ought to just suck it up and move along in the rat race. Right?

It’s all a bit much.

The norm for the average college student wishing to find a well-paying, successful career after graduation mandates a resumé that  resembles the work of two or three people, not one. At least that’s what it feels like.

Students are expected to have perfect grades, hours of community service, involvement and leadership in several organizations outside their curriculum, lists of awards and achievements. It could go on for days (and for some of those miracle-working overachievers, it does). When did we all start being measured by the length of our resumés, rather than the strength of our characters?  When did the expectation arise for us to run in circles of work, stress, work, stress?

One in five undergraduates is overstressed, according to a 2008 article on MSN. the article reports on a study conducted for the Associated Press and the television network mtvU. In the study, undergraduates reported having trouble with concentration, sleep, and motivation. Lack of sleep due to a major test or a project coming up? We’ve all been there. But studies like this one reveal a darker side of stress.

According to To Write Love on Her Arms, a non-profit movement that works to educate teens and young adults about prevention of depression, addiction and suicide, suicide is the third-leading cause of death among those aged 18-24. Stress, anxiety and depression go hand-in-hand. We are all barreling along a tightrope of stress and anxiety.

Stress is a black hole. The expectations and the workload the average college student takes on transform this abyss into a monster. According to the AP-mtvU poll, 13 percent of undergraduates say they have been diagnosed with a mental health condition such as depression or an anxiety disorder.

So, how do we maintain a healthy and successful college career? Can the light at the end of the tunnel be closer than our retirements 50-some odd years away?

I think we need to decide what truly is going to matter.

Will we really care that we didn’t do so well on our last calculus test, or that we didn’t get the A on that last project or the perfect internship? I don’t condone laziness, nor do I believe  in giving up. But I do think that relative to the rest of our lives, making a few mistakes does not doom our future careers.

Marcus Aurelius, the last of the “Five Good Emperors” of Rome, once said, “He who lives in harmony with himself lives in harmony with the universe.” Achieving balance is necessary to becoming a successful person, not beating ourselves up about an imperfect GPA and 20 extracurriculars. College is a place to pursue the career we’re passionate about and achieve purpose. To be overworked and overstressed and unmotivated would forfeit the point of college. Perhaps all we need is a little harmony.

We don’t need to work ourselves into the ground. A perfect resumé does not guarantee happiness, nor does the high-paying career we  are taught we need. There is no such thing as a stress-free life, but balance is attainable.

Seek help in your darkest hours, but in the meantime, take a breather every now and then. It’s the only way we’ll keep our wits in this wild, stressful and exhilarating ride.

.

If stress is overwhelming, contact Mental Health Services at 225-578-8774 or the LSU Crisis Hotline, “The Phone,” at 225-924-5781, open 24 hours a day.

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