-Zach Becker, MBA

Former Editor & Publisher

MSU Class of 2011

With a dearth of creativity, Hollywood seems to be angling for movie ideas wherever it can get them.

Bobbing through the studio franchise vault, Dune Entertainment and director Joe Carnahan wrangled in a winner with The A-Team.

I’ll admit, I had my doubts before I entered the theater. Whose idea was it to make a multi-million dollar blockbuster based on a television series canceled over 20 years ago? Heck, I’ve never watched more than a few minutes from the original show on TV Land. I’m guessing many in the target demographic have never even heard of the show.

Recast and given a fresh coat of paint (not to mention special effects and action sequences beyond those any 80’s television writer could have dreamed up), 2010’s The A-Team offers a summer action/adventure romp well worth the cost of admission. It stands on its own for audiences completely uninitiated to the A-Team lore like myself.

I’ll try not to spoil too much of the plot, but the movie kicks off right in the center of the action. The film gives each of the four A-Team members a proper introduction as it tells the “origin” story of how the off-beat-but-kick-ass group of commandos joined forces. The story quickly jumps ahead eight years later, though, as our heroes are about to complete another mission for the military (their 81st). Unfortunately, things go wrong and the A-Team end up being framed for a crime they did not commit. Naturally (but very creatively), they bust out of prison to get revenge and clear their names.

The film has action and plenty of it. The filmmakers showed great creativity in the action sequences, including a very clever segment in which the characters “fly” a tank through the air. They avoided most cliches of action movies, making the film feel very fresh and new, despite being based on such an old property.

The quirky characters and the camaraderie and witty banter between them really set this movie apart from the typical summer action drivel. Pacing is also near-perfect as the film never seems to drag.

The filmmakers wisely kept the plot firmly tongue-in-cheek and it never takes itself seriously. It has a zest and fun to it reminiscent of many 80s action flicks.

Needless to say, I came away very impressed with The A-Team. Anyone looking for a fun – if not incredibly deep – summer action film will not be disappointed.

I pity the fool who doesn’t watch this movie! (Sorry, I couldn’t resist).

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?

On Friday, April 9, 2010, I delivered the following speech to the Missouri State University Board of Governors concerning my opposition to construction of the University Recreation Center, a $30 million facility set to break ground later this month. After my speech, Student Body President Chris Polley stood up and delivered an off the cuff speech to the Board explaining how the majority of students are totally behind this project and are “anxiously awaiting” its construction.

I was disappointed that the Board decided to approve the award for contract unanimously shortly thereafter; however, I am glad I had the chance to say what needed to be said. It was a long shot to change their mind at this point, but someone needed to speak out for common sense. Unfortunately, common sense apparently is just not too common anymore among government officials. Students are starting to wake up, though, and I think the next time one of these wasteful projects is proposed, Missouri State students are going to stand up and make their voice heard.

———————

MBA Student Zachary Becker to the Missouri State Board of Regents; April 9, 2010

A storm is on the horizon. Higher education budgets may be cut as much as 20 percent in the near future. Already, legislators are looking to renege on the previously-agreed-on tuition freeze at state universities. You know much better than I the implications these massive cuts will have on Missouri State University and the students it serves. Larger class sizes, elimination of programs, fewer experienced faculty, and tuition increases are all likely.

With uncertainty ahead, I implore you to re-evaluate plans to construct the University Recreation Center. I know this has been in the works for many years, but in these budget circumstances any project can and should be re-evaluated if it is not in the best interest of the university. Economic circumstances have changed drastically since this project was originally conceived in 2006. Spending $30 million on a recreation center and paying to staff and maintain it is an extravagance the university cannot afford right now. I am not necessarily saying we cancel this project. Rather, we should hold off for the time being and wait this storm out. Favorable bond rates and low construction bids are poor excuses to push forward with a building we do not need at a time when administrators are asking each department to make every dollar count in preparation for the worst.

Even on the cusp of construction, when most current students could conceivably use this building before they graduate, many are saying no to the recreation center. We have a Facebook group of 230 students who will attest to this fact, and I have no doubt many more see the folly in proceeding with this project during these economic times. Forward-thinking students understand that Missouri State only has limited resources and some things must be sacrificed to keep higher education affordable. While significant tuition increases appear inevitable, we should not add to this load by asking students to support a superfluous building.

When students originally voted on this measure in pre-recession 2006, it was not a slam dunk. Only 56 percent of students approved it, which was advertised at the time as a renovation of McDonald Arena at a cost of $23 million. With the project $7 million over budget and students tightening their own belts during the economic recession, I think the current student body would vote quite differently today.

Many say this new rec center is going to draw potential students to Missouri State who might otherwise choose larger schools like Mizzou, Kansas, or Oklahoma. But trying to compare the amenities of our university side-by-side with those of larger institutions is an exercise in futility. Students choosing on those criteria are going to pick another school every time, rec center or not. Students choose Missouri State because of the quality and affordability of the education we provide. We should be putting resources towards recruiting top-notch faculty, making our academic departments the best in the nation, and keeping our tuition and fees low. These are areas where we can stand out from our larger competitors.

A cold wind is a blowing, and a storm is almost here. Roughly 20,000 students at Missouri State University are counting on you to make wise decisions on their behalf. You have a duty to make fiscally responsible choices for this university. Tough times call for tough decisions. If you truly believe it is wise to build a $30 million recreation center on the cusp of the biggest cuts in higher education yet seen, then by all means go forward with it. But if you have doubts about the timing or cost of this project, do not be afraid to step up and say no. Do not let the power of group think lock you into voting for an expensive, obviously-unnecessary and poorly-timed project.

The current and future students of Missouri State University are counting on you to make the right decision. Thank you for your time.

Today Student Government Association posted the official language that will be on the ballot for next week’s elections, held April 5-7.

Issues up for vote include the election of a student body president and vice president, senior class president, five proposals for uses of Wyrick Funds and a potential increase in the Student Involvement Fee.

Jacob Swett and Justin Mellish are running unopposed for President and Vice-President of SGA, although students do have an option to vote “no confidence.”

Two candidates are running for Senior Class President; John Gauthier and Corey Honer.

A proposed $9 increase in the Student Involvement Fee is up for a vote, which would up the fee to $26 .The Student Involvement Fee is used by Student Activities Council to sponsor campus events.

As for the Wyrick proposals, the theme this year appears to be signs, banners and marquees.

One projects asks for funding for large campus maps near visitor parking to better direct newcomers around campus at a cost of about $15,500.

Another project involves planting beds with the Missouri State name set in steel letters with back-lighting at a cost of roughly $82,800.

The third project on the ballot asks for about $19,600 to put banners on 68 light poles around campus and paint some campus fences with the Missouri State colors and logo.

For $43,600, students are asked for money to install electronic marquees that will display current events and emergency information to be located in various high-traffic campus areas.

The final Wyrick proposal on the ballot asks to install an electronic counter in Bear Park South to display the number of open parking spaces currently available at a cost of $74,700.

Wyrick funds will go to projects with the most student votes first and then down the line until the funds are depleted.

The full ballot language can be found online at http://sga.missouristate.edu/. Language of the Wyrick proposals is copied below.

Issue 3: Wyrick Fund Project Proposals 2010

Listed below are Wyrick Fund Project Proposals for 2010. You may vote to approve all, some, or none of the projects. Projects will be funded in the order of votes received until the fund is exhausted or until the cost of the projects exceed the amount remaining in the fund.

1)      Wayfinding Signage

a.       This proposal recommends that new basic double-sided wayfinding signs be installed at the entrance of the Visitor Parking Lot (Lot 13), outside the south entrance to Baker Bookstore near the Plaster Student Union, and at the northwest corner of Carrington Hall.  These signs should be roughly 4 foot by 4 foot.  A final sign should also be located at the southeast corner of the Visitor Parking Lot (Lot 13) that is more significant to drive individuals into the main corridor, and it should include both a permanent map and a location for individuals to take their own personal campus map.   This sign should be roughly 4 foot by 6 foot.  These signs should include lettering and directional arrows on both sides pointing to the four major landmarks.  The signs should also be unified in appearance, strongly influenced by Missouri State University colors (Maroon, White, Gray, and Black), and should include strong elements of the university logo.  The total cost of this project would be $15,550.

2)      Four Corner Signage

a.        The proposal includes a half-oval shaped planting bed with a base made to reflect the limestone (including the red-tinted rock) featured in many of the buildings on the main quad to be installed. Furthermore , it would include  four pillars (also made to reflect the limestone) be erected around the new planting beds that have panels and tops that reflect architectural details seen on Carrington Hall.   We also recommend that the current lettering on the cement facades being removed and be replaced with a large stainless steel plate with “Missouri State” cut out of it in the current university lettering.  This lettering should be backlit.  The project also incudes stainless steel plates with cut-out lettering and backlighting be installed at the other three secondary locations.  Total cost for this project is $82,836.

3)      Light Pole Banners and Fence Painting

a.       This proposal would install 68 Banners on light poles in Lots 13 , 15, 18, 22, 25, 35, 38, 40, and 43 that would be designed by a commission of students to promote school spirit, and the fence facing lot 15, the fences facing east towards national, and the fences facing north towards Grand would all be painted with Missouri State Lettering and the Missouri State Bear head logo.  The Total cost for this project would be $19,586

4)      Current Event Marquees

a.       This proposal would install 12 current event marquee screens, to be located in the dining centers, the library, the student union, Bear Park North and South, Park Central Office building, and Brick City that would display current events on the Missouri State Campus, along with emergency notifications.  The total cost for this project would be $43,661

5)      Bear Park South Parking Counter

a.       This proposal would install a car counting system in Bear Park south that would calculate the number of open spaces in the garage and display those on two signs located near the entrances for the garage.  Those signs would also include a variable message system that could display messages such as “Event Parking” or “Upper level closed due to weather.”  The total cost for this proposal is $74,704.70

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.