My mom has an ornament of a coroner on her Christmas tree. He stands proudly, displaying a certificate of death. A little Macabre for Christmas, you say? No, not when that coroner is a character from the beloved 1939 classic Wizard of Oz.

Hallmark issued this ornament of the Munchkin coroner and mayor in 1998.

That little Hallmark ornament on my mom’s tree was the first thing that came to mind when I heard the sad news of the death of 94-year-old Meinhardt Raabe, the munchkin coroner from the Wizard of Oz.

As a child, I watched that movie on tape more than I’d care to admit. While my favorite character was always the Tin Man, who can forget the Munchkins? The mayor, the lollipop guild, and of course the coroner who examines the body of the Wicked Witch of the East and declares “she’s not only merely dead, she’s really most sincerely dead.”

Here is my salute to the Raabe, forever remembered delivering that famous line as the Munchkin coroner. His performance left such a lasting impression that 50 years later, in 1998, Hallmark issued an ornament of his character.

Name another coroner people would put on a Christmas tree?

I would just like to share with everyone a new website from the makers of The Underground. The Bear Report is a satirical website about Missouri State University. Find it at www.bear-report.com. Fake News. Real Funny.

After participating in today’s protest against the construction of the University Recreation Center, I must say I came away very impressed by the level of student interest in the issue.

We had probably 25-35 students show up during the course of the hour-long demonstration. I have yet to hear the final count on the signatures we got on a petition for a re-vote, but I know several pages of signatures were filled. The News-Leader showed up to cover the event, as did The Standard, so that should also increase awareness.

Many of the attendees were members of the swim team. They are not very happy with the fact that this new pool (and lazy river) is being built (which is not Olympic sized and they cannot use), yet their own pool is in pretty bad shape.

Like the rest of the protestors, they also believe this project is a waste of valuable resources during a time when we are about to see budget cuts.

We even had a group of five or six anti-protestors along for the ride (and their couch).

This was my first protest, and it was a lot of fun. It was really nice to see students have such strong feelings and voice them, especially over a campus issue. Too often, students just seem apathetic.

I got a chance to talk to Justin Wieberg, a student working in Campus Recreation who was part of the opposition to the protest. We had a friendly debate over the issue. Of course, he informed me this is really a non-issue, since their is no way at this point they will not build the thing. I guess he thinks we are wasting our time protesting it. In reality, the facility is set to break ground next month, so it probably is a long shot to put the breaks on it. But it’s not over til it’s over.

Of course, for it being a mute issue, I find it interesting he would spend his afternoon handing out pro-rec center fliers to students to combat our anti-rec center protest. If opposition is doomed to fail, why bother?

I read a blog post written by one of my relatives, Nels Lindahl, in which he rated his favorite Star Trek iterations, including both television and movies.

As a Trekkie myself, I was surprised by his rankings of the various Star Trek endeavors, specifically how low DS9 and First Contact rated on his list and how high he placed Generations. Perhaps the readers can weigh in on their opinions and settle this debate.

Here are my rankings:

1. Star Trek: Deep Space Nine (1993 – 1999)

Although the first seasons are pretty good, watch the latter seasons after Worf arrives with the Dominion War and the Defiant. This is one of the few times Star Trek attempts a serial drama where plot lines run over multiple episodes and seasons. I also love the depth of the main characters, the complicated ethics they encounter (Sisko even conspires on a secret assassination, but knows it was right because it will ultimately save billions of lives). The show also boasts a plethora of recurring side characters and excellent villains. I’m not sure why, but this show never gets the credit it deserves.

2. Star Trek: The Next Generation (1987 – 1994)

This is the show that got me hooked on Star Trek originally when I was a kid. It was just winding down as I started watching. It definitely features some excellent episodes, from the action of the Borg to moral choices involving life and death. The first couple seasons, though, quite frankly blow for the most part and this takes it down a notch, compared to DS9 which shined throughout its run. Still, overall this is a great series, although I wish they would have taken a more serial format instead of essentially hitting the reset button each time.

3. Star Trek: The Wrath of Kahn (2nd Film, 1982)

This film is absolutely classic and still tops all other Star Trek films. Ricardo Montalban stands supreme as the ultimate villain and Spock’s sacrifice and Kirk’s eulogy are touching.

4. Star Trek: First Contact (8th Film, 1994)

This is the only Next Gen film really worth its weight. The Borg rank a close second to Khan on the Trek villain scale. While the action was great, I also enjoyed the crew’s interaction with Zephram Cochrane (inventor of warp drive). We do tend to create these false impressions of famous historical figures and create saints out of them. Picard’s vendetta against the Borg for hurting him also provided a great moral dilemma.

5. Star Trek: The Original Series (1966 – 1969)

This is what started it all. The triumvirate of Kirk, Spock, and McCoy provided a moral compass for a western set in space. Some of the episodes are pretty corny by today’s standards and the effects are absolutely horrid; however, plenty of classics still stand out. If you compare this to other space shows of the time period (like Lost in Space), there is no comparison. There is a better tomorrow.

6. Star Trek: The Voyage Home (4th Film, 1986)

The one with the whales is just plain fun. The lighter tone provided a much-needed change of pace from the issues of death and resurrection in 2 and 3. I understand how this fish out of water story entertained mainstream as well as Trek-nerd audiences.

7. Star Trek: XI (11th Film, 2009)

This latest re-envisioning of Star Trek had blockbuster success appealing to main-stream audiences in a way not seen since The Voyage Home. Action packed and with probably the best effects the series has ever seen, it packed a punch on the screen. That said, the plot was fairly thin, the villain not particularly great, and moral dilemmas practically absent. Finally, though, after all Trek’s travels through time, history was actually changed for once. This film resurrected a franchise thought killed by the last TNG flick.

8. Star Trek: The Undiscovered Country (6th Film, 1991)

The final film featuring the original crew (and original actors) explored Kirk’s hatred of the Klingons. With a plot mirroring (the then recent) fall of the Soviet Union, it touched on many topical issues of the day. We get to see the classic crew in action saving the universe one last time. Heck, they even get to “ride off into the sunset.”

9. Star Trek: Voyager (1995 – 2001)

This show was a mixed bag for me. Some episodes I really enjoyed, while others fell flat. After the interesting moral dilemmas and serial story lines of DS9, I felt going back to the format of TNG was a step backward. The setup for the show was perfect for the serial type of approach, as they were lost light years from home, trying to get back in one piece among alien species. However, they sadly never delved into many strong moral dilemmas, nor ever really had their ship even get banged up (except in episodes where things would reset back to perfect for the next show), and kind of just went along in a “business as normal” exploring the galaxy type of show.

10. Star Trek: The Search for Spock (3rd Film, 1984)

They planted the seed in Star Trek 2, so you knew if commercial success came, they would be going back for Spock in 3. I really enjoy the first half of the film, as they bring home the damaged Enterprise hoping to send her back to Genesis, only to learn their ship is to be scrapped and they are forbidden to save their friend. The plot to steal the Enterprise is a lot of fun, and each crew member gets a moment to shine. Self-destructing the Enterprise to take out the Klingons was a shocking development, although the rest of the movie was a disappointment. Christopher Lloyd just was not a great villain (especially compared to Khan in the preceding film). I really thought the death of Kirk’s son was done almost extraneously. The big fight on the surface of the Genesis planet between the captains was so fake, it was laughable. Still, the film fulfilled it’s purpose of bring Spock back to life.

11. Star Trek: Generations (7th Film, 1991)

I remember taking a bunch of friends to see this film for my birthday as a kid. Sadly, it didn’t live up to it’s lofty expectations. As the bridge film between the original crew and the Next Generation, it’s promise to bring Picard and Kirk together onscreen raised many possibilities. Instead of a confrontation between them in space (or maybe a team-up), we instead get them horseback riding together. Somehow, I doubt this is how most people hoped the legendary captains would meet up. It was cool to see the Next Gen ship and crew on the big screen, but the weak plot and the less-than-fulfilling death of Kirk put this film firmly in mediocrity. I really wish they would have made the finale of Next Generation into a movie instead of this, as that final episode was far superior.

12. Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1st Film, 1979)

Star Trek returned after a dormant decade and upped itself to the big screen. While this was before my time, I can imagine the excitement Trekkie’s felt over this film. The heavy sci-fi plot really took a grand view of the universe and the staging of this plot also had a grandiose feel. I wouldn’t say this movie was bad as much as it was just kind of boring. I actually like the idea behind the plot of this movie. It just really drags in spots. Beyond that, the characters seem to lack much of the life and fun that popularized the original series. Still, even today the special effects (mainly shots of the Enterprise itself) are elegant. The model work done for this film was outstanding.

13. Star Trek: Nemesis (10th Film, 2002)

In what turned out to be the final voyage of the Next Generation crew, we get what feels like a crappy rip off of The Wrath of Khan. While not horrible, it was obvious from this film that the franchise needed retooling.

14. Star Trek: Insurrection (9th Film, 1998)

This film gets a bad rap, although I don’t know if it deserves it that much. The problem with this film is that it feels just like a regular episode of the series. The plot dealt with some difficult moral dilemmas involving relocating the colonists for the greater good, although the scale needed for a motion picture was just not there. I would say the title also is a bit overstated, as when they do decide to commit insurrection against the admiral, it is quite obvious they are in the right and they would not be court martialed back home for what they did.

15. Star Trek: The Final Frontier (5th Film, 1989)

William Shatner directed this disaster, originally intended as the final entry in the series. The plot is awful, and the effects are worse. Trying to duplicate the levity in the previous Leonard Nimoy directed film, the jokes are ham-handed and just plain dumb.

16. Star Trek: Enterprise (2001 – 2005)

I honestly did not watch a lot of this show. The episodes I did watch failed to impress me. At this point in the franchise, it seemed they had run out of new ideas. Mercifully, they canceled it after only 4 seasons. Strangely, they set the finale of the show as a subplot to a mediocre episode of Next Generation, bringing back Counselor Troi and Commander Riker to star in this episode. An odd end to a ill-conceived prequel series (shouldn’t they have known better after seeing the lackluster Star Wars prequels).

Discerning news from non-news used to be one of the key functions of journalists and their editors. Back in the day, reporters were limited by the practical problem of limited physical space in the print edition. Some things made it, others didn’t.

While I love the Internet (as I sit here blogging), there are times I think editors should use old style discretion when deciding what is and what is not newsworthy. Some things should never be posted online and certainly not as news.

I write this after reading a gossip-style news tidbit from Politico which describes in every detail how Sen. Chuck Schumer called a flight attendant a “bitch” (or the “B-Word,” as Politico puts it) under his breath after she told him to turn off his cell phone before takeoff. After that long-winded gossip, we also get an account of Rep. Virginia Foxx “shooshing” one of her colleagues who whispered something to another person while she was speaking at a conference. Then, we get to hear the stunning news that Rep. Grace Napolitano made chili and guacamole for a party. This sounds like something you’d read in a celebrity gossip column. Have we gotten to the point that we look at politicians in the same light as celebrities, where people want to hear every little detail of the lives of the rich, famous and powerful?

I think the Politico and other outlets who report this nonsense need to exercise a little good old fashioned news discretion.

All Americans should have access to affordable healthcare and no one should be denied coverage by health insurers because they are sick. It’s a great ideal, but how great an idea is it in reality?

Time to buy some full coverage insurance!

Under the latest Senate bill, all Americans will be required to buy health insurance or else pay a penalty. In exchange, health insurers will not be allowed to deny people coverage based on pre-existing conditions or charge those people any more than they do everyone else. Okay, so the idea is to increase the amount of people paying in so insurance companies can afford to take care of the sick people. Nice idea (although I question the constitutionality of forcing people to buy a product they do not want, but that is fodder for another day).

However, the penalty in the Senate bill, according to The Miami Herald, is only $750 per person up to $2,250 per year, per family.

Imagine you are a young, healthy twenty-something working a decent job. Now, you could either pay $150 a month for health insurance with a $1,000 deductible, or you could just pay the $750 penalty at the end of the year. Which do you think most healthy people are going to pick?

Besides, if you do get gravely sick, you can just go buy some coverage and pay the premiums and deductible (also a capped affordable amount) and have the insurance company pick up the rest of the tab for treatment. If you have a serious, chronic disease, this could easily cost the insurer hundreds of thousands a year. Again, you can’t be denied coverage for the pre-existing condition, nor be charged more because of it.

Of course, this goes completely contrary to the whole idea of insurance, which is to, you know, plan ahead and pay into a joint fund in the event that you may get sick in the future. Insurance premiums are going to go through the roof for companies to foot this bill, as most people will not start paying in until they actually get sick. Either that, or insurance companies will just exit out of the market altogether and cut their losses.

Let’s take some of the emotion out of the equation and think of this another way. What if Congress proposed a similar initiative involving car insurance?

Now, insurers cannot charge you more for full coverage than anyone else is charged, even if you have a poor driving record and lots of tickets. Better yet, you can just pay a small government penalty rather than buy insurance.

However, if you get in a serious wreck, you can just go down to the insurance company and they will have no choice but to write you a full coverage policy even though your car is already totaled. You pay a couple grand in deductible and a month of coverage and they pay the price to replace your car. How does that make any sense? Yet that is essentially what we are proposing with healthcare reform. How is that sustainable in the long run?

Affordable healthcare for everyone where you can’t be denied coverage is a great ideal, but implementing it is ultimately unsustainable and thus illogical. We need to go back to the drawing board and come up with a real solution to this problem.

I wrote an article on the Duggar family, stars of TLC’s 18 Kids and Counting, and felt I needed to follow up after comments indicated a misunderstanding of my thoughts.

For one, the original article was not intended as an indictment on the Duggars, but rather ABC.com for bringing in environmentalism as an argument against having a large family. I thought the authors strayed far from the topic at hand (the birth of the Duggar’s 19th child) and inserted their own tilted perspective onto this so-called news article.

Actually, it is kind of scary to think that with the EPA’s declaration of carbon dioxide as a pollutant (don’t tell that to plants), some might try to use this as a justification to institute population controls like we see in China. Obviously, that is the general idea the author’s of that article were taking when they discussed “carbon legacies” when citing the tons of carbon dioxide those children will emit in their lifetime. Very scary, indeed, but this is a topic for another day.

Getting back to the Duggar’s, though, after watching several episodes of the show, they seem like good people; perhaps a bit odd, but then again they do have 19 children (and live in Arkansas). Of course, we all know how “real” reality television is (see divorce of Gosselin, Jon, and Gosselin, Kate).

That said, while I think they originally had good intentions when they started this huge family, I think at some point they quit worrying about what was good for the children and started worrying about how they could get more viewers (and thus more money and fame). The more children they produce, the more popular they become.

According to a Dallas Morning News Article, the Duggars were first noticed by the national media in 2003 when an AP photographer snapped their picture as the parents lugged their 14 children on their way to the voting polls. The picture ran on the cover of the New York Times.

In 2004, the Duggars starred in a USA channel documentary (child count at that point was 14 with the 15th on the way). They appeared in numerous documentaries as they cranked out two more babies before landing their own reality program 17 Kids and Counting in 2008 (changed to 18 Kids and Counting for season 2 and sure to be 19 Kids and Counting soon).

Since gaining media popularity, the Duggar’s moved up to a 7,000 square feet house. All of the appliances were provided by TLC and other sponsors. They appear to live frugally (at least when the cameras are rolling), but despite claims of success in real estate, it is doubtful they would enjoy the same standard of living had fame not supplemented their income. I also find it interesting that they seem to spurn watching television, yet parade their children in front of the cameras daily.

I do not think the Duggars are inherently bad people; quite the contrary. However, they did seize an opportunity for fame and fortune and continue to crank out child after child to feed the media beast. They can claim to be extolling the virtues of large families, but perhaps they should take a look at what their actions are doing to their own children. Beyond the traditional challenges of living in a huge family, their children are also being put behind a camera for a national audience to sit and gawk at. Only a fool would say that this will not have unintended consequences at some point.

Reality television has enhanced the lives of the Duggars by providing a comfortable standard of living. However, it has also spurred the perhaps harmful expansion of their family size and put the lives of 19 children under a spotlight which could prove psychologically damaging.

I was shocked after reading a controversial USA Today article discussing the quality of meat served in America’s public schools. Would someone tell me when, exactly, did they started serving meat in school lunches?

Meat must have been added to the menu in the last few years, because the only thing I tasted in those “hamburgers” as a kid was soy. Smother them in ketchup, though, and they didn’t taste half bad. Oh, who am I kidding?

It wasn’t just the hamburgers that were awful, though. They screwed up every variety of potato ever made; (instant) mashed potatoes and gravy, tator tots, potato wedges, french fries, hash browns, and the famously derivative tri-tator (a hash brown cut in the shape of a triangle).

They earned extra points with all the kiddies when they’d bring out the broccoli or worse yet, breaded okra.

Main dishes weren’t any better. Squares of Tony’s pizza with toppings such as imitation pepperoni were bad enough. Those things were so dry, there is no way any bacteria could live there.

Worse yet, though, were the turkey and noodles. This thick substance had a greater resemblance to vomit than food, easily served up via the versatile ice-cream scoop. USA Today noted that many of today’s schools are serving birds that would normally go to pet food, but I think they literally had cooks working the sides of the roads searching for the foul fowl that went into the turkey and noodles. But what did you expect for a buck a meal?

Of course, once a month they would roll out their specialty; crunchy munchy chili with a cinnamon roll. The crunchy munchy part really just meant they put a few Fritos on top, but it sure made it sound fancy. Compared to the normal menu, the chili was a real treat. Sadly, though, you also knew that within the next week they’d reheat the decaying remnants of that great meal, add some soy and call it a sloppy joe.

Schools didn’t have a problem with meat when I was a kid. The solution is soy-mple.

The Duggars are destroying our planet! It’s time for the EPA to step in and put a stop to this unchecked procreation! Yes, according to an ABC.com “news” article, Michelle Duggar of the TLC program 18 Kids and Counting recently gave birth via emergency C-Section to her 19th child. While the usual concerns about having that many children were addressed, as environmentally responsible journalists, the authors also mentioned this major concern.

Each child, he said, multiplies his mother’s carbon legacy by 5.7 percent, which means the Duggar children alone could be responsible for contributing more than a million metric tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.

“Big families have always been portrayed as something lovable and beautiful,” Weisman said. “Think of ‘The Waltons.’ But we do have an issue now, where it’s not just about home and family. It’s about the planet, and the planet hasn’t gotten any bigger. We only have one atmosphere.”

You saw it here. Beyond polluting our airwaves, all those Duggar children are also polluting our air. Women of the world; reduce your carbon legacy and use birth control instead. Your children will thank you for it. Actually, scratch that last sentence..

Author’s Note: This piece was written in a satirical tone. Judging by some of he comments to it, I am not sure I accomplished that task as well as I would have liked.

I saw the performance “all of America will be talking about tomorrow” for the finale of the 2009 American Music Awards, and I think America will be talking about boycotting ABC advertisers because of the offensive and tasteless crotch-fondling (and faux-blow jobbing) performance of Adam Lambert. Somehow, I doubt that is the response they were looking for.

It is amazing how clueless some TV executives can be (and this was from Disney-owned ABC). Did they really think America wants to see a musical enactment of gay bondage? Out of all the classy performers featured during the evening, they decided to end it with Adam Lambert (who I had never heard of before, and frankly never hope to hear from again)? How about Whitney Houston? Or Green Day? Even Lady Gaga seemed classy in comparison to Lambert, and she performed in a light-up Halloween costume vest and athletic tape.

I was in total disgust throughout the performance, and I was happy to see the Los Angeles audience was just as horrified. A few people clapped, but it was very quiet for such a huge audience that had been so enthusiastic through the night.

Shame on you, ABC. That performance was a revoltingly disgusting choice. Here’s hoping some sponsors pull their ads from your programs. You deserve a good lambasting for that one.