“Live bears” across Missouri breathed a sigh of relief this week.

Student Body President Chris Polley announced the University has squashed the Student Government Association’s plans to bring a “live bear” to football games. No reason was given outside the administration’s discomfort with the idea.

I’m glad this “live bear” idea didn’t materialize because I don’t think keeping a bear captive for our amusement is something an institution of higher education should do.

But the effort to capture, collar, and cage a “live bear,” though misguided, was aimed at addressing a legitimate issue. That issue is the lack of school spirit among the students. Granted, every third freshman is wearing maroon, but what does that mean? How does that manifest in a sense of community as students?

The activities email I get every week has events the University is putting on and some by student groups. Where is, for lack of a more precise term, the voice of the students? I don’t mean things done for students, but actions taken by students, as students and not as some group.

For example, there were a few articles about the controversy last year with SGA and the money for Eagles tickets, but widespread protest? Calls for accountability? None.

Earlier this month, many campuses demonstrated in solidarity against a wave of cuts in education funding and tuition hikes. It’s not just California and their 32 percent increase.

Michigan, South Carolina, and Colorado students are looking at increases. Our freeze isn’t going to hold forever. There were over one hundred protests nationwide. Nary a word here.

Now we have this new fitness center being built while everyone holds their breath, waiting for budget cuts. Does this make sense? Even if the fitness center money was “set aside” by a student vote, doesn’t that call for a review and change of the system for allocating these funds? We shouldn’t be locked into spending millions of dollars by students who aren’t here anymore and barely gave a second thought to a building being constructed five years down the road.

RHA is considering converting Brick City into loft style “on campus” housing. Meanwhile, we’re plowing under actual “on campus” land to build special swimming pools in our new fitness center.

We have to slash our budget and risk tuition hikes somewhere down the line so we can fund this fluff. Is housing located further away from campus really what we need? How will that help build school spirit?

Students shrug it off for the most part. They are passionate in their own little spheres, but as a student body, they are uninterested in the course set for the University by the administration.

What would a “live bear” do? Bears live their lives almost entirely alone and spend a good chunk of that time sleeping. It’s somehow fitting that we would think to bring a solitary, territorial predator to try to draw people together.

Low attendance at some sporting events isn’t due to lack of spectacle. It is a symptom of a deeper lack of community among the students.

Until the root problem is addressed, all the “live bears” or maroon t-shirts in the world won’t make a difference.

As I drove through Springfield, I noticed a Blockbuster closing on Independence. Not far from there, a Movie Gallery on Republic displayed a similar going of out business sign.

The poor economy no doubt played a part in these closings. Blockbuster posted a $434 million loss for the final quarter last year, while Movie Gallery recently filed bankruptcy for the second time in three years.

I can’t help but think these are indicative of a larger trend.

With the emergence and rapid growth of digital media distribution, the days of going to the store to rent or buy a movie (or book, music album, or video game) are numbered, I believe.

Already, sales of compact discs have fallen over 50 percent since 2000. By contrast, in 2009, people downloaded 1.16 billion songs online, up 8.3 percent from the previous year.

DVD sales went down 13 percent in 2009 to $8.9 billion. While the sales of Blu-Ray discs did go up in 2009, this emerging high definition format still only accounts for a small fraction of disc sales.

I’m afraid Blu-Ray might go the way of the SACD – Super Audio Compact Disc.

Introduced in 1999, SACDs offered higher definition audio than traditional CDs, but the medium, while not dead, has just never caught on with the mainstream.

I enjoy the high-definition quality of Blu-Rays on my Playstation 3, but I just do not see myself building a huge library of Blu-Ray discs like I have with my DVD collection. I probably will only pick and choose my favorite movies that I think deserve the high-def treatment.

It is hard to justify $25 a pop for a movie when I can stream thousands of movies online either through Netflix ($10 a month) or pay to download them straight from iTunes at a reduced price.

Even the video game market seems to be trending toward the direct download model, although perhaps a bit behind the other mediums due to the larger file sizes involved.

Beyond the assortment of downloadable classic and homebrew games, you can now download some full retail home console releases direct online. Sony is betting heavily on this concept with its PSPgo handheld, which has no physical media player whatsoever in favor of digital distribution.

Even books are being pushed off of the bookshelf and onto the screen.

E-readers like Amazon’s Kindle are rapidly gaining steam in the marketplace, with some predicting the device to reach $1 billion in sales in 2010. You can even read newspapers and magazines on it.

The digital distribution model makes so much sense economically. Forget the middle man and deliver the product right to your customers, eliminating costs like shipping and retail salaries.

I’m excited by all these changes, yet part of me is also saddened.

There’s something about the physical ownership of an item that, for all the instant gratification and cost savings digital distribution allows, is missing when your favorite movie is sitting on your hard drive rather than your shelf.

I remember as a kid when I would go to the store. I would see all the video games new and shiny and I would find the one I wanted most. I would save my money for months before finally getting the chance to take it home.

Removing the plastic wrap.

Carefully opening the box.

Quickly throwing the instructions aside.

Admiring the artwork on the cartridge.

Nudging it into my Nintendo and booting it up.

When I was finished playing, putting it on display next to my other favorite games.

Keeping those games for 20 years in storage, even though I have not touched them in five years.

It is an experience not replicated with a simple download.

The days of physical media are dwindling.

CDs, DVDs, Blu-Rays, books and disc-based video games are not going to disappear into the digital abyss overnight, but look ahead 15 years and you might be hard pressed to find many on store shelves rather than download servers.

Still, there may be hope for physical media in a long forgotten place: vinyl records.

You know, those big, flat, circular pieces of soft plastic with music on them that your parents or grandparents may store in the attic. Replaced by the 8-track, cassette and finally thought killed by the CD, vinyl records are coming back.

According to reports, sales were up 35 percent last year.

Completely non-digital and non-portable, some people find the analog sound of records to be superior to its digital descendents. Or perhaps they just enjoy owning a physical copy of their music.

Instantly downloading media is nice, but sometimes nothing beats holding the purchase in your hands and showing it off to your friends on your shelf.

I’m tired of hearing about how much we’re spending on defense and the military.

It’s a well known fact that the military budget of the United States is almost as large as the rest of the world’s combined defense spending.

Estimates run from $660 billion to over a trillion dollars in the defense budget for 2010, about 5 percent of our GDP.

The new budget from the White House will have the U.S. spending above $2 billion every day.

And with good reason; US troops are deployed in more than 150 countries around the world, we’re fighting two major wars, several ostentatiously-named peacekeeping missions, and the ubiquitous global war on terror.

It’s undoubtedly expensive to keep the tanks greased, planes fueled and soldiers paid.

Though that’s simplifying it; defense spending includes $4 billion spent on recruiting, which also figures in about $22,000 in entitlement bonuses and the $1,600 spent on advertising for each recruit that enlisted.

Remember America’s Army, the free video game the DoD released a few years back?

Somebody got paid to make it.

Recently we celebrated the memory of Martin Luther King Jr. – I was struck by a quote. Rev. King said, “When a nation becomes obsessed with the guns of war, social programs must inevitably suffer. We can talk about guns and butter all we want to, but when the guns are there with all of its emphasis you don’t even get good oleo. These are facts of life.”

The words rang even more truly when the New York Times reported the president was going to freeze spending, excluding important programs like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and of course defense.

It’s a common talking point to cite the dangers of international terrorism as a justification for maintaining and increasing military spending.

Nobody wants to be seen as soft on the enemy. But when it comes to the state of our armed forces, as thinly stretched as they are, it is an obvious fact that there is no comparable conventional force on the planet.

Yet we continue to fund the military and train troops to fight with the same mindset of the British during the American revolutionary war.

As the British wore bright uniforms, marched in a straight line, and were cut to ribbons by guerilla fighters across their empire, we pour money into high tech hardware while our enemies handle obsolete soviet weapons we bought for them decades ago.

We occupy Iraqi and Afghani cities and are (surprise!) seen as the invading occupiers.

We are fighting a cultural and ideological force with all the finesse of a wood 2×4.

Meanwhile, defense contractors enjoy the opportunity to “support our troops” by turning a huge profit and American businesses enjoy the new potential markets in so-called stabilized zones.

Taking a closer look at the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, civilian deaths are a subject of much dispute, but studies say anywhere between 100,000 and a million have died in Iraq, and in Afghanistan, numbers easily suggest tens of thousands have died unnecessarily.

While some collateral damage is a fact of war, the fact that the military does not release official body counts and estimates suggest only 20,000 or so casualties suggests we’ve successfully killed more people who did nothing to deserve it than we have the targets the military intended.

This policy of accepting excessive civilian deaths, combined with a colonialist mentality of “the only acceptable government is our government” and never-ending occupation, suggests the war is one of attrition, and that defense is the furthest thing from the DoD’s mind.

When “defense” takes the form of an overwhelming force which answers to no one and consumes money sorely missed in a shaky economy, the money spent becomes revenue for what I call an offense budget.

Ironic to think that we have a Department of Defense (renamed in the late 40’s from the more accurate “Department of War”), yet no Department of Peace (despite numerous propositions).

At the same time we have defense spending, which conveniently encompasses all offense spending. And all this time, more people are forced to get by on the oleo Rev. King mentioned.

Would we pay for an offense budget? Probably not. Will people keep signing up and heading off as long as we call it defense? Most definitely.

Haiti. It’s all over the papers, the news, and the internet. You don’t need to hear any more stories about what’s going on, what you need to do, or how you can help.

You’ve heard it all already, and are probably getting a little sick of having it thrown in your face constantly. That’s not what this article is about.

A man searches for his belongings in a restaurant in Haiti after a major earthquake caused massive damage to Port au Prince, Haiti, on Jan. 12. Photo courtesy Marco Dormino/United Nations

Instead, I would like to take to task an opinion article written by Gabriel McLaughlin published Jan. 19 in Missouri State’s The Standard. In it, McLaughlin questions whether taxpayer resources should be given to Haiti without the citizens voting on it and whether we should even maintain our relationship with Haiti at all.

I’m sorry, but what? I couldn’t believe I was actually reading the words printed there.

The author compares the aid to Haiti to America’s past experiences with “propping up other governments.”

Now, let me get to the heart of the issue. This is real life. There are human beings. Dying. Daily. People who are just trying to live their lives as best they can, who share the same ground as we do.

If something of this magnitude happened in our country, we would be outraged if another nation as rich as ours (or nearly) decided to take a vote on whether we should receive aid. I’m sorry, but McLaughlin needs to take another look at our system of government.

The length of time it takes for a bill to be passed is staggering. At this very moment people are dying of heat exhaustion and starvation and lack of water there. They needed help weeks ago, not in two years.

McLaughlin says we need to focus on our own country right now, seeing as we’re in an economic slump.

Well, I have a thought: instead of jumping on a cause that’s saving lives, why not talk about corporate bailouts, the healthcare reform laws and other countless pork-barrel policies running rampant through Congress?

We are the richest nation in the world. Think about the magnitude of that statement – there are seven billion citizens of our planet.

People in America throw away pounds of food daily, when the majority of people in the world don’t have enough to eat for each meal.

We don’t have the option to be selfish in this situation. Lives are at stake. I just hope more people start caring.

It is time to declare a ceasefire. The war on drugs is a classic case of the solution being a bigger problem than the problem itself.

Now, before you attack me, let me state that I have never tried nor ever intend to try any drugs. This is not the ranting of some pot or crackhead. I would heartily recommend all people stay away from drugs.

This issue must be examined logically, though. We had 7.3 million people in our correctional system in 2007. That is 1 in 31 adults. That is triple the number of people in the system back in 1982. During that time frame, our nation has redoubled its efforts in the war on drugs.

We’ve gotten tough on crime, as politicians like to say, and now dole out longer, mandatory sentences for drug crimes. Federal mandatory sentencing guidelines set out by Congress in 1986 and 1988 take away the discretion of judges to decide what punishment is best suited for a particular drug offender based on the facts of a case.

Instead, federal judges are given concrete rules that determine the length of an offenders sentence based on the amount of drug sold and whether or not a firearm was involved. Some might deserve longer sentences, but many non-violent offenders could better served by being sent into drug rehab. Our prisons are overflowing, yet instead of addressing the problem, we continue to send non-violent drug offenders into their ranks.

If the goal is to lock as many people up as possible, then the war on drugs has been a total success. We account for 25 percent of the world’s prison population, yet only have five percent of the total world population. If the goal is to rehabilitate offenders and successfully re-integrate them into society, then the war on drugs is an unmitigated failure. A 1994 study shows that 67 percent of drug offenders are arrested again within three years of release from prison, up from 50 percent in 1983. We’ve got a revolving door of drug offenders coming in and out of prison.

The problem stretches beyond the United States. We serve as the goal line for a multi-billion dollar illegal drug trade that makes its way up from South and Central America and goes right to the heart of our cities, leaving behind it a wake of death and destruction at the hands of powerful drug lords.

Now, let’s imagine what would happen if we decided to legalize all drugs and treat them like we do cigarettes and alcohol (meaning regulating their manufacture, publicizing their dangerous side effects, restricting their use for certain activities like driving, and not allowing them to be sold to or used by those under 18).

Suddenly, these dangerous drugs are widely available at your local supermarket. Cocaine, methamphetamine, and marijuana are now sitting at your local drugstore in a locked case next to the cigarettes and beer.

The cost of these products will inevitably be cheaper than those purchased on the street. Almost overnight, the drug trade will disappear. The pot of gold waiting in the United States for Colombian drug lords will be gone, as will much of their power. The neighborhood meth lab ready to explode at any minute and take half the neighborhood with it will be gone, too.

The supply will be safety tested, eliminating contaminants common in illegally manufactured drugs. Drug users can cheaply buy clean needles to use in their habit, slowing the spread of HIV and other illnesses. The drugs will be taxed, creating a new revenue stream for local and state governments. I don’t want people using drugs, but they will anyway. At least now they could do so more safely.

The prison population would drop significantly, freeing up taxpayer resources. Non-violent drug offenders could be sent home or to rehabilitation facilities. Violent crimes would go down, as affordable drugs would eliminate the need for users to commit many of their money-related crimes.

What would we be left with in the wake of legalizing drugs? One huge drug problem, just like we have now. The difference is that our method of dealing with it would not cost billions of dollars and would not overflow our prison system.

Look at alcohol. We tried making that illegal. We ended up with many of the problems we are facing now with drugs; illegal manufacture and use and increased burden on the correctional system.

Instead, we legalized it and brought it out into the open. Many people still have an alcohol problem in this country, yet I think our current solution is better than making its use illegal.

Today we have support groups and rehab clinics ready to help alcohol abusers. With all the money we will save on prisons, we can increase our rehabilitation efforts for drug users. Make these open and free for anyone who is ready to get help.

Some might argue that by making drugs readily available, we will encourage more people to use them. However, cigarettes are widely available, but their use has been on a downturn for years through civic education about its risks. Per capita alcohol consumption has been going down since the 1980s. Legalizing drugs will eliminate the appeal of them for some people drawn to things forbidden, while education about these drugs at the point of purchase will increase public awareness about the danger involved.

We spent over $13 billion combating drugs in 2008. Throwing more money at law enforcement is not going to solve this problem. We need to stand down and try a new strategy focused not on locking people up for using drugs, but rather treating people who have this problem.

A solution that causes more problems than it solves is no solution at all. End the war on drugs.

As the campus community continues to react to the startling resignation announcement by MSU President Michael Nietzel, one can’t help but wonder what role the upcoming budget crisis had in his decision.

In any case, we need the leader of our college to have his or her full attention and energy directed toward the difficult situation ahead. While it would have been easy for Nietzel to sit back and collect on that big paycheck, I respect him for recognizing that his head was not in the game.

You know the budget situation is looking grim when the school is going as far as eliminating a $300 expense for an entry fee normally given to the intramural flag football champions to compete at a regional tournament (see page 7).

Scrimping, saving, and doing without will no doubt be some of the job requirements for the new president.

With all of this cost-cutting, we can’t lose sight of the primary mission of any institution of higher learning; sports, obviously.

Like a butcher, we have to be careful to avoid the bone as we cut the fat out of the budget.

It seems the first instinct usually is to gouge the students. Increased tuition. Increased cost of parking permits. More tickets and fines.

Unfortunately, I am sure we will see plenty of these measures to go along with budget cuts.

Instead, I think we need to be more creative. Here are a couple ideas I had just off the top of my head.

Remember that grain elevator Missouri State bought for $1 a few years back but haven’t done anything with? I think it would make a great billboard. Businesses pay decent money for an average billboard. Imagine what they’d pay for a giant one like that.

What about that fancy new arena everyone seems to think is costing too much to maintain?

Why don’t we put JQH to good use and generate some revenue. I look on the event calendar and besides sports, I only see four special events through March. None of them are big draws in my opinion.

The Eagles came to JQH to open the place up with a bang. Why can’t we get more acts like that. Maybe someone like Bob Dylan? Oh, yeah, he performed at the Shrine Mosque when in Springfield instead.

JQH is an awesome, state-of-the-art arena. I’ve been to arenas in big metropolitan areas and I have to say, besides its smaller size, JQH was just as nice.

We are lucky to have an arena like that for a city this size. We just need to better utilize it.

We have a great university. Let us hope our new president can keep it that way through thick and thin budgets.

I realized something last weekend.

We as college-aged Americans are no longer specific or personal enough when it comes to introductions.

We don’t know who the people we’re being introduced to really are.

For example, while at a party a few Saturdays ago, I noticed a young sir introduce a girl he was with as his “friend” Tiffany.

Tiffany shot a gaze so fiery at him I thought he was going to fall over and burn in a hellish inferno.

I gathered from this exchange that this guy, “Bob,” and “Tiffany” had quite a history, and she was less than pleased at his nomenclature for her as a friend.

Wouldn’t it be easier if we could just introduce our family and friends as they are, without having to later explain to someone their true identity?

So many parties are fraught with awkward introductions, and people barely know boundaries anymore.

Does girlfriend mean someone you’re in a relationship with? Or is it a cover-up for someone you’ve made out with once or twice? I’m imagining a world where someone could walk up and be told, “Hey, this is my guy friend Josh. We’ve made out a few times when we’re drunk, but I won’t really care if you hit on him. I’ll find somebody else.”

Or even, “Hi, this is my girlfriend Stacy. But she cheats on me a lot, so I’m ready and willing hook up with you.”

And honestly, it doesn’t even have to apply to dating/hooking up people.

For example, when bringing a new boy over to the house, introduce your roommate with a “Hey, this is Susan. Try not to be out in the living room before 10 a.m., because she tends to sleep naked on the couch.”

Or, “This is my incredibly nosy roommate Dave. Don’t tell him anything personal about yourself, or he’ll pick you to death with questions.”

And best friends—we all have them – but a lot of us have ones that take a little getting used to. “This is Roxy, my best friend. Um, try not to make any jokes about her appearance, no matter how untrue they are. You WILL be dealing with rage and sobbing if you do.”

And family—that could be the best. “Hey mom, this is my fiancé Kyle. Kyle, this is my crazy, overzealous mother who possibly ruined my childhood with a little too much alcohol. She also listens to too much country music.”

People would know right off the bat what to talk about, what topics to avoid, and how to behave around the people they’re being introduced to.

Our world would be much better off if we could just tell the truth, from the moment we say hello.

Welcome to the discussion! Whether you’ve been with us since the beginning or just picked up The Underground for the first time, thank you. You’re the reason we do what we do.

Since you’re reading an alternative newspaper, I don’t have to convince you of the sorry state of the news media.

If they aren’t framing every story as a left-right shouting match, they use the shield of so-called objectivity to quietly condone the status quo.

It’s no wonder viewers, listeners and readers are seeking alternative media more than ever.

Readers like you look for something more than just the standard fare when it comes to news. You’re naturally curious; you like to look into different sources of information.

You’re a discerning reader; you don’t take things at face value. You search for unique stories, moving stories and divergent opinions.

In other words, whether you know it or not, you were already an Underground reader before you picked up this newspaper.

As smart, savvy, independent thinkers, our readers possess all the necessary qualities to be great journalists.

Take the next step. Join us as an Underground writer!

Famed independent journalist I.F. Stone got his start with a newspaper he created in high school called Progress.

From such humble beginnings, he went on to found I.F. Stone’s Weekly in 1953, a pioneering newsletter that fought McCarthyism, racism and was the first American publication to question the official account of the Gulf of Tonkin. There are now half a dozen awards for independent journalism named after Stone, given by organizations from Harvard to Berkeley.

Missouri native Walter Cronkite dropped out of college at UT Austin to take a job reporting for the Houston Post. Of course, his later contributions to television news were lauded at length after his death last June. His work that struck me the most was his coverage of the moon landing. Cronkite’s palpable excitement belied his curiosity and thirst for knowledge.

Neither of these men had formal training or journalism degrees when they started. What they had is what you have, a discerning eye for information, natural curiosity and a love of the truth.

And you don’t face nearly the obstacles those men did. You don’t have to start your own publication. Zach and Jenny Becker, our Editor-in-Chief and Publisher, respectively, have done that for you. You don’t need to quit school to write for this paper, either. In fact, we would specifically recommend that you not do that.

This is a newspaper in the old style; a community meeting place rather than a dry listing of the day-to-day machinery of the University. If you have a story to tell, if you have something to say, reach out to us. Shock us. Make us laugh or bring us to tears. Give voice to the voiceless. Satiate the burning desire to communicate. Being part of the discussion means being part of the solution.

Stone and Cronkite are gone now. They are passing the torch to you. Come tell your story.

Like a lot of people in Springfield, I watched last night’s Extreme Makeover: Home Edition. The episode featured the total destruction of a local family’s run-down 800 square-foot home and the construction of a brand new 3,300 square-foot home. The eight-person Hampton family seemed worthy and appreciative of the very generous gift and I am happy for them.

However, I still have the same problems with this show that I always have. Extreme Makeover is one of those feelgood programs that demonstrate, in true American fashion, that if you are a good person eventually you will be rewarded by winning the lottery and getting lots and lots of stuff (and be famous for it). Of course, you don’t have to buy tickets to this lottery. Instead, ABC execs select the biggest sob-stories out of a large bag of tears. Winner gets  a new house filled with expensive stuff and sometimes even a free car. 

Extreme Makeover makes itself out to be this ultimate charity designed to help the masses of misfortunate struggling people. However, while it tugs at the heartstrings, its real aim are the purse strings. This show has more product placement than the movie Mac and Me. These companies are not trying to help people; they are just trying to pad their bottom line. Granted, I don’t blame them for it, as I’m sure it is effective. I bet the local builder from the latest episode sees a boom in business. Still, the show works hard to be a tear-jerker and make ABC, host Ty Pennington, and the sponsors look like philanthropists, which they are not.

Once the whirl-wind of publicity goes by and the dust settles on these families, how much better off are they? ABC certainly doesn’t help the parents get a better education or learn new job skills. These people are usually low wage earners and are now stuck paying the utility bills and maintenance costs on a home triple the size they had before. Obviously, taxes go up on the property big time, too. (In fairness, according to reports, the show helps families with some of this expense by either outright donation or by helping the family exploit tax loopholes to avoid some of the taxes on their remodeled property).

The bottom line is, though, that you are taking a family and creating a living environment that is well beyond their means. While good at first, unforeseen consequences can arise and families may be left in a lurch and possibly lose that fancy new home. And what about the neighbors? These poor folks now have a mansion in the middle of their rundown neighborhood. The mansion among shacks distorts the property values for everyone in the area.

With all the money ABC spends on these fancy mansions, they could instead easily spend the same amount and create  livable conditions for a whole neighborhood of people. Maybe they could create homes for homeless people, building small, one room apartments that could house hundreds who don’t have a place to live.

The show is just wasteful, too. The old Hampton house they dynamited last night, while far from luxurious, certainly would have made a decent home for a family of two or three. I’ve seen homes in Springfield in much worse conditions than that one.

Extreme Makeover shows us the true American dream. If you wait around and hope enough, eventually some all-powerful entity will bail you out and give you lots and lots of stuff and maybe a big house.

Stuff equals happiness, right? Judging by the euphoric and tear-filled reaction of most Extreme Makeover winners, I guess the answer is a resounding, “OH MY GOD!!! OH MY GOD!!! YES!!”

I am a spoiled child. And if you’re reading, it’s likely you are too. Why is that? For one, you were born in the most privileged nation on the planet. Second, it’s likely you grew up in a relatively happy environment, and third, we have never experienced a fraction of the hardship much of the world endures daily.

Not to fault you for your birth; I believe all people should be treated the same irrespective of their origins. But because we are sheltered, we see the world through a cloudy lens, fogged up by our ignorance and naivety. That perspective isn’t shared by those whose lives are marred and tattered from violence, conflict, and war.

Violence begets violence, and many people who have pain forced on them propagate that struggle in their lives. Some would say that the nature of man is conflict. In a word, war. But violence is not strictly an evolutionary trait. It is a culture we learn through societal values and mores. And it is something we can unlearn, in time, with our words, our actions and our lives.

Building a sustainable society of peace is a monumental challenge; in fact it goes against the competitive mentality of selfishness that is celebrated by everyone who has something to lose and is cursed by everyone who has nothing to protect. But in a cooperative spirit of altruism, where we analyze the problems we are each facing, we can be real peace builders by addressing the causes of conflict rather than the symptoms of injustice.

The Student Peace Alliance advocates for a US Department of Peace and Non-Violence that will address the root causes that we are facing at home and abroad. Terrible circumstances in our country give rise to problems like domestic violence, juvenile crime and gangs. Despite our overwhelming military presence around the world, conflict zones fester and escalate into the wars of tomorrow. A US Department of Peace is an institutional way to address these issues at the highest levels of government and to examine the means to solve issues before they destroy lives and continue the cycle of violence.

Beyond that, SPA is a way for like-minded students to get together for the things they believe in. We will find ways to impact our community with the values of our mission; integrity, compassion, courage, creativity, and community. And by our influence, we will pass on and promote those values among others.

There is a paralyzing amount of apathy among fortunate people who take their rights and freedoms for granted. The most capable people in the world become the most useless when they think this way. The insidious thought that “I can’t change anything,” is what keeps real change from happening, the sort of change that goes beyond a campaign slogan into something that affects people’s lives.

You have the chance every day to go outside your sheltered, privileged life and be the difference the world needs. Changing the world starts with changing yourself. Student Peace Alliance is a way to help that happen. If you are interested, please contact me at PeaceMSU@gmail.com.