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?

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?

You get the chance to play with all the toys and learn as much as you can, should you decide to seize the opportunity.

Or you can just spin on the merry-go-round until the recess bell rings, throwing you dizzily into the world without a sense of direction.

You see, that little piece of paper you get at graduation is only worth the effort you put into it.

Take “easy” classes to get an “easy” degree and you will just end up with a hollow piece of paper that is “easy” for employers to ignore.

Let’s face it; a four-year degree is pretty common nowadays. Sure, it may make you eligible for an interview, but it guarantees nothing.

Especially in a down economy, competition is fierce.

You’ll not only be competing against other recent graduates, but often against people who have a degree and twenty years of experience to accompany it.

What is going to set you apart?

Rote memorization is great when you need to pass tomorrow’s test, but not so good when you need to recall that information ten years down the line.

You may be a member of 15 different student organizations, but if you only showed up to one meeting each, what do you really have to show for it beyond a blip on a resume?

Network.

Network.

Network.

The more people you know, the more likely you are to know someone (or know someone who knows someone) at your desired place of employment.

Active involvement in student or volunteer groups is a great way to increase your social network and build your resume.

Most of all, learn to have your own thoughts. Critical thinking may not be an academic subject, but it is more vital than any other skill.

Observe your environment and be prepared to make your own judgments.

Think.

Think.

Think.

The recess bell will be ringing soon. The world awaits.

Are you ready for it?

Or will you be throwing up from all that time on the merry-go-round?

-Zach Becker

For the Editorial Board

The debate between evolution and religious creation is always fun for me to watch, perhaps because it typically leaves proponents on one side or the other with a rage-induced aneurism after choking on the bitter pill of defeat.

I fail to understand, however, why this debate repeatedly arises in our public high schools, spurred by our teachers, no less.

If you ask me, it’s a shame that the argument is even given consideration in public high schools to begin with.

Amidst the soggy clump of mail I retrieved from a severely over-crowded box after a Spring Break jaunt to Florida, I found a rather ornate invitation to a “Christian Creation Conference” right here in Springfield, which is supposed to take place later this month.

Fantastic. Here in the “buckle of the Bible Belt” as Springfield is sometimes lovingly penned, it seems that one can hardly go through the day without over-hearing (or being caught in) the argument for either creationism or the evolutionary theory.

Since and before the Scopes showdown of the 1920s, this debate has pervaded the press, the pulpit and the university without end.

Recently, this centuries-old cesspool of fury and literary styling has leaked into our courts system for it seems the 4.6 billionth time.

A lawsuit filed in the spring of 2008 against California high school teacher James Corbett was decided earlier this month. Corbett was sued by the parents of one of his students for “using his classroom as a ‘bully pulpit’ to express ‘derogatory, disparaging, and belittling’ views about religion and Christianity.”

The plaintiff student apparently recorded a series of Corbett’s classroom lectures as ammunition for the lawsuit, including one in which Corbett described the creationism story in the Christian Bible to be “religious, superstitious nonsense.”

The court dismissed both the plaintiff’s demands for damages and an injunction which would’ve prevented Corbett from expressing any disdain for religion in the classroom; however, it was upheld that any belittling of creationism by a teacher constituted an “improper disapproval of religion in violation of the Establishment Clause” of the U.S. Constitution. Apparently, both sides intend to appeal.

The argument over creationism vs. evolution being taught in public schools has drawn grievances from philosophers, scientists, parents, lawyers, preachers, teachers, and maybe even Texas, yet what the argument lacks these days is the perspective from the most novel crowd of all: the students.

I’m not suggesting that we ask students what they want to learn in school. Most would probably just say “nothing.” Let’s be honest with ourselves though—this argument stopped being about the well-being of our students a long time ago. Like any heated topic these days, what it’s really about is being right.

The creationist people are chomping at the bit for the opportunity to outsmart or humiliate the heathen evolutionists, while the evolution people are foaming at the mouth at the thought of students being told that anything but a Big Bang and four billion years of Einstein’s, Hawking’s, and Dawkin’s created the world and built the A-bomb.

Has anyone ever asked proponents on both sides, “Why does either argument belong in our public schools?” Any answer would surely have nothing to do with what is best for the students.

I mean, how exactly does evolutionary theory inform our current ninth-through-twelfth grade science curriculum?

Does it have any bearing whatsoever on chemistry? Physics? Baking soda volcanoes? By the same token, let’s face it, studying creationism likely leads into studying theology, which also has no place in public school.

As a future teacher, I’m all about prompting our students to think critically, but not over issues so trivial and useless when compared to the rest of the curriculum.

This guy Corbett, for example, was a European History teacher. European History, people. Is there not enough history to pass the day with? Must we resort instead to creationism vs. evolution? Please.

In summation, Corbett was being an ideological quack who used his classroom not as a “bully pulpit,” but rather as a soapbox on which to vent his frustrations about creationism. He apparently found this more suiting than teaching history and facilitating the learning of his students.

And this kid who recorded Corbett’s lectures so that mom and dad could swat the mean-old-teacher on the wrist with a nasty lawsuit? A quack if I ever saw one. He probably spent more time cooking up that little scheme with the tape recorder than he did on his homework.

Both sides plan to appeal. Both sides believe they’re right. Neither side really cares about what happens to our students. Let’s all just stick with what works, shall we? Readin’, writin’, and ‘rithmatic rarely cheese anyone off, after all.

Do you know what a protest is? If you were asleep in your grade school history classes, protesting is that little addition to our Constitution that makes it legal to peacefully and publicly disagree.

If this is review for you, why haven’t you taken action? You’re a college student! Surely there must be something you disagree with. Every new generation’s youth is bound to get riled up to the point of mass public assembly.

What is it that pushes your buttons? Bummed out bud’s not legal? Feel the failure of Prop 8 is blatant integration of church and state? There’s lots to choose from, and unless you’re in a coma (be it clinical, technical or medical), something irks you, and it’s time to take action!

Sadly, most of us shrug off our chosen sentiments at this stage, and Springfield streets, full of potential for activism, are viewed routinely, and with the same bland indifference.

What is the source of this protest-procrastination, this inability to take action? I provide the reason— reality —in three parts.

First, many college kids don’t think protesting is necessary. Others doubt the effectiveness of suggesting change at all. There hangs a cynical haze over us, a cloud ever-murmuring “there’s nothing we can do.”

To them I say, shout louder! Protest gives us citizens the perfect opportunity to usher in change. Consider the civil rights movement of the 1960s – if protest worked to change the law then, why then is it absent now, when the law makes many angrier than I’ve ever seen any hippie get?

Another factor in our inactivity is the fear of backlash. I’ve overheard students planning to attend a tea party rally, nervously speculating the legality of holding a sign in a public place. As they worked themselves into a theoretical frenzy of canines and cop cars, I again think back to my history lessons of women suffragettes being beaten, political radicals starving in prison, rock stars and presidents (pretty much all our good orators) murdered and wonder why they did it. I like to think it was because they couldn’t help but stand up for what was important to them. Have 50 years changed this?

The final source for the lack of protest is the fear of being labeled an extremist. The words “protestor” and “radical” are not synonyms, yet a relationship persists between the two. The horrendously cruel actions of sickos like Osama Bin Laden on 9/11 and more recently Joe Stacks from last month suggest ramming a plane into a building makes a bigger statement than a peace rally does. It is our duty to actively disagree, to model the life of a true American revolutionary — in dedication of ongoing service to a cause.

Protest is not a dirty word! Our country was bred and fed on internal protest. It is our civil responsibility not only to stay informed on what affects us, but to act accordingly to keep the laws and legal practices that govern us in sync with the times. American law is not etched into stone. We would do well, as socially sensitive beings, to recognize this, and dare to not just question out government, but to demand our voice be heard.

“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.

Since that time, the housing market collapsed, the banks went bust, unemployment reached historical levels, and now we’re looking at huge budget shortfalls in higher education.

Missouri’s higher education commissioner warned of potential 15-to-20 percent budget cuts to state universities, possibly leading to university closures, larger class sizes and even elimination of athletic teams.

And yet, we are still chugging along about to build a superfluous facility that the majority of students will probably never use and which will cost untold amounts in the future to properly staff and maintain.

Worse yet, those who actually need it the most – athletic teams – are specifically being barred from using the facility.

The times where we could afford to lounge down the lazy river are over.

Sure, it would be nice to have another pool, an indoor track, a rock climbing wall, more basketball courts, more gym equipment, and, of course, a lazy river.

The good folks in Campus Recreation have done a phenomenal job helping plan and design this project. It looks like a beautiful building with lots of great features.

But not here and not now.

Not in these economic conditions.

This project should be re-evaluated immediately. We should not be stuck constructing a building just because students four years ago voted to approve the project. It might have made sense then, but certainly not now.

Let students vote whether they think this is a good idea going forward given the current economic situation.

Student fees already paid into this project could be diverted to other, more vital projects, or perhaps just held in a fund. When economic conditions and higher education budgets improve, this idea is certainly still worthy of consideration.

Now, though, is not the time.

-Zach Becker

For the Editorial Board

If you are against construction of the University Recreation Center, join our Facebook group, “MSU Students Against Construction of the University Recreation Center.”

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.

Public schools in Texas may be required to teach “ethical capitalism” during economics class if an idea bandied about by conservative Christian and self-declared historian David Barton goes through.

Judging by this latest economic debacle in the U.S., Barton has concluded that capitalism is only sustainable when it comes handcuffed to the Golden Rule – treat others as you would like to be treated.

This set off my oxymoron-o-meter. Lately I’ve imagined the Golden Rule to be more like a Jesus-Wesley Snipes hybrid that comes along every so often to stab capitalism in the heart with a wooden bailout (or blow its brains out with a sawed-off guilt-trip).

Can capitalism and the Golden Rule coexist? I’m far more inclined to say “no.”

When economic times are good, prosperity abounds and unemployment is licking the dust, who the hell wouldn’t abide by the Golden Rule? I mean, why not?

As long as my pension (I don’t actually have one) is safe and sound, gas prices are low, and Bernie Madoff can lather up with Ben Franklins every night, what’s there to worry about?

I’ll gladly treat you the way I would like to be treated, so long as the game of Life treats me good first.

If there’s one thing that the latest fallout from Wall Street has shown me, it’s that when the rubber meets the road and times aren’t so great, self-interest wins out in the end.

True, the Golden Rule was still celebrated in corporate brothels such as Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase; however the good will stopped at the board room door with Goldman CEO Lloyd Blankfein and four other board members each receiving around $9 million in bonuses for 2009. I can just feel the warm fuzzies from here.

Honestly, I suppose I’m no less guilty in the end than Goldman Sucks—er, Sachs.

When bills are piling up and payday is still two weeks away, you probably won’t see me just dying to write checks to the Salvation Army.

Even churches (and a few televangelists, believe it or not) around the country have been cutting coupons and scraping the bottom of the barrel due to a sudden drop in the giving habits of their congregations.

On the other hand, when this economic crisis turns around, unemployment rates go back down, and my boss feels better about giving me a raise,

I’d probably give my left thumb to the Salvation Army in a fit of joy.

This is also the part in the story when Bernie Madoff writes a mushy, heartfelt memoir from his prison cot talking about an impoverished childhood and just how wrong he was to be such a jerk-head with other people’s money.

When times are good, people tend to be good too, no matter where on the socio-economic jungle gym you happen to sit.

Recent events may suggest slightly otherwise, I admit.

The outpouring of money and other forms of relief from the American people to assist a disaster-stricken Haiti has moved and inspired me, while proving that although many of us may be under the financial gun, we can still recognize needs greater than our own and give what we do have to help.

You see, people make these ethical decisions.

People decide to abide by the Golden Rule all the time.

Simply re-branding American capitalism in school curricula will surely do very little to inspire altruism, much less force us to make charitable decisions when the going does get rough.

Adding the Golden Rule into the equation would make a lot of things sound just dandy.

Ethical unemployment, anyone?

How about some ethical textbook prices?

Ethical Republicans (just kidding)?

Ethical war?

Ethical capitalism is just as ridiculous as any of these, and adding it to a few school books in Texas won’t make it any less of a fantasy, no matter how badly Barton and his cronies would like it to be.