• School closure announcements
• Special events at the school
• Report card reminders
• Emergencies and/or high-importance messages

Tonight, we got a recorded message from the superintendent, and the president of the PTSA. The message: please go protest the governor’s proposed budget at juvenile hall this week.

Now I don’t mind getting political phone calls. In fact, I usually enjoy them. Every time there’s a particularly spicy subject on the ballot, the Republican publicity machine cranks up the evening reminders to me to be a good citizen. What I do mind is the use of education dollars (read: tax dollars) to fund political messages like the one we received tonight.

Assuming that I could deal with the misuse of funds, how about this one? You’re using the school district’s parent phone list for political gain. Hmmm…should I add myself to the “do not call” list at the school, now? I don’t recall being asked about political action calls when we agreed that it was important for the school to be able to notify us of important school-related issues. We usually assume that there’s something important going on when the district number shows up on caller ID; but this is like having your oncologist call to solicit donations for the hospital.

Notice that I’m not commenting on the merits of their concern. The truth is, I’m not well-enough versed in the details of the budget to comment one way or another. But even if I did agree that the governor is screwing our schools, I’d still take issue with the superintendent’s decision to abuse his uninhibited access to parents.

How about this, Mr. Superintendent? Go make the phone calls, one by one, to each home in town, and declare yourself as a political action figure. Or better yet: have a car wash, and pass out fliers.

Hell, I don’t even wash my car…but I’d still fork out $10 to have you spray it down, just so I could mock you in a bikini.

Technorati Tags: california, politics, education, school district, ramona, calls

Interesting note: the article was published on September 11, 2001. *shudder*

The Athletic Enterprise

A few weeks ago, I was sitting in Qualcomm Stadium (formerly the glorious Jack Murphy Stadium) enjoying a terrific pre-season football match-up between my beloved Chargers and the Niners. Things couldn’t have been any better, really. It was a beautiful day, my chest paint hadn’t really started smearing yet, my ballpark frank had just the right amount of relish, and the Chargers were winning. Smiling to myself, I reached for my beverage. Just as I felt the pleasant coolness of my plastic cup, the familiar sound of a whining voice passed right through the cheering of my buddies: “I can’t believe those meatheads make that much money. I could do what they do. It’s not THAT hard.” A firm believer in the theory that ignorance is America’s biggest opponent, I immediately became sickened by this lady’s opinion, and fearful for our country’s future all at once. How could she do this? Why did she have to ruin the rest of the game for me? Why do my buddies insist on rubbing my hair every time the Chargers connect for a gain? Am I the only one that gets it? Does anybody else see that professional sports represent the epitome of capitalism? Probably not. Which is why I feel it’s my moral responsibility to share this nugget of truth with the sports-crazed student body of M.I.T.

As we begin, let’s take a small quiz in the spirit of higher education.
   
Which of the following statements is said most often in America today?
A.    “Bill Gates makes way too much money.”
B.    “Successful lawyers make way too much money.”
C.    “Musicians make way too much money.”
D.    “Professional athletes make way too much money.”

Clearly, the answer is D. There is no profession in America as publicly scrutinized for compensation irregularities as that of professional athletics. Yet, is a professional athlete really ANY different from Bill Gates or Johnny Cochran? Sure, Bill Gates runs a software giant, and Cochran keeps killers out of jail, while athletes score touchdowns, hit homeruns, shoot hat tricks, or nail three-pointers. But specifics notwithstanding, there is no fundamental difference in the reason these people make so much money: they are all very good at what they do. But athletes’ salaries are consistently questioned because we, the members of society, are collectively jealous of a situation that we continue to support.

One of my favorite arguments from sports opponents is, “Athletes don’t do anything productive for society. Doctors, teachers, nurses, policemen – they should be making millions, not athletes.” Though I happen to agree with the notion that each of the aforementioned professionals may be underpaid, the argument does not checkout as valid. Personal opinion or implicit value really don’t mean a thing in a capitalistic environment. Let’s compare, for one second, water and Beanie Babies. We absolutely cannot survive without water; it is essential to human life (most life for that matter). On the other hand, we have Beanie Babies. Though many may argue that life cannot go on without them, I can assure you that one CAN survive without Beanie Babies. So, why is a gallon of water so much cheaper than a Beanie Baby? Because the implicit value of a commodity, or service, has no relevance in our economy; how much of that product or service we demand dictates it all.

This may come as a shock to many, but the United States of America – the wonderful nation of freedom and hope, the light on the hill, the place where dreams are made – is a capitalistic country! Supply and demand inherently regulate cost and availability of nearly everything in our society (economists, please cut me slack – I know there’s much more to it). Thus, when all of us baseball fans trot down to Fenway Park, purchase tickets, buy jerseys, eat ballpark franks, and chant, “Yankees Suck,” we’re demanding all-star baseball players! Believe it or not, every time you tune your television set into a game at home, you’re contributing to that market as well (the Yankees received an estimated $52.5 million for local broadcast rights in 1997). “But, there are thousands of professional athletes in the world. Why do we have to pay so much for a few?” I don’t know how to say this any other way, but teams aren’t in the league to lose. You want them to win, you pay money for them to win, and they shill it out so that you keep coming back. It’s business! Similarly, athletes haven’t spent their entire lives perfecting their athletic prowess so that people can pat them on the back and say, “Great job, pal. You were super tonight.” When the day’s over, just like anyone else, they want to take a paycheck home. It just so happens that, if they’re that good, their paycheck is a lot bigger than yours or mine.

Perhaps the most amusing of all the arguments against professional athletics is, “How can we pay these athletes millions of dollars a year, when this country has people on welfare?” You’ve used a key word: ‘we.’ I don’t know how ‘we’ can continue to do it. But I’ll tell you one thing for sure, ‘we’ aren’t going to stop paying them so much money unless ‘we’ stop watching their games on television, being patrons at their games, buying their hats, their jerseys, etc. What about this? “How can we pay these farmhands hundreds of dollars a year, when this country has people on welfare?” I haven’t heard that question in a while.

In closing, I’d like to ask one last question of our academic community. If we detract from the success of some, in order to compensate for the lack of success of others, what kind of economic system would we have then? If the government controls professional sports, instead of the consumer, and disperses the money where it sees fit, are we capitalist? No. Such a notion is the first step toward communism and socialism. But, in the spirit of such a thought, I’ve got an idea. How about we completely take control of Major League Baseball. Since some players are worth hundreds of millions, let’s take them out of the picture, and replace each one with the equivalent number of workers at minimum wage. Now that we have those people off of welfare, we can put them to work making baskets or something useful in the stadiums during game time. Of course, people will continue to pay for tickets, and will undoubtedly watch it on television – after all, we’re paying money to support the less fortunate. If it goes really well, we can even have new jerseys made with the names of the most productive basket weavers (so long as they don’t get a pay raise for their productivity)! I just hope Sports Center will continue to cover the MLB.

technorati tags:mit, thetech, sports, salaries, athletes, pay, politics

Nancy Pelosi finds the use of dangling participles acceptable, and that’s unacceptable.

Pelosi, at a news conference in San Francisco, said Cheney’s criticism of Democrats was “beneath the dignity of the debate we’re engaged in and a disservice to our men and women in uniform, whom we all support.”

Can you spot the participle, and why it’s dangling?

Hey Nancy, you’re awesome!

technorati tags:pelosi, participle, politics, congress

I’ve been talking about starting up a podcast for far too long…and the time has come to make good on that promise.

So, it’s with great fanfare that I announce our new podcast: Turnip Soup. Turnip Soup is a weekly podcast where my buddies and I will talk about the sorts of things that show up here on Turnipville (and occasionally something you might find at Martini Geek). In other words, we’re going to put our usual hilarious spin on odd news stories, sports, tech, and whatever else might pop up during the show.

We’ve set up a command center, of sorts, over at Turnip Network. There, you’ll find subscription links for all of your favorite podcatchers, including iTunes and Odeo.

We’ve also thrown some flash-based players in the mix so that you can listen to the latest show without having to download anything.

For your convenience, here are some quick links to get you into the fray.

technorati tags:podcast, turnipsoup, turnipnetwork

The long buzz was for a "Breaking News" email from Yahoo!, and it was informing me that the NSA’s secret wire tapping program had been deemed unconstitutional. I read the summary of her judgement, and it seemed logical to me: it’s unconstitutional for the government to monitor citizens without having a reason to do so. It’s an invasion of privacy, and the government shouldn’t have free reign to peak in on our daily lives on a whim. Okay, I get it.

I wonder, though, how people will react to this. I asked myself the following question:

Would I prefer to keep my pizza order to myself, if sharing it with someone in the NSA means that my family stands less of a chance of being blown up on the way to the grocery store?

Before you all start leaping out of your chairs at my gross exaggeration, consider the question in a more down-to-earth sense. Do you think people are more concerned about terrorism, or privacy? What confidence level do people have in the NSA’s ability to keep their surveillance activities limited to the pursuit of terrorists? Is it ridiculous to assume that individual liberties, like privacy, trump individual safety? Most importantly: is that even an applicable question?

If you’re looking for a political opinion from me on this one, hold on to your chairs: I don’t know that I have one.

I wish that there was a way to fight terrorism out in the open, and that the battlefront can be kept as far away from my 10 month-old as possible. But, is that realistic?

I can say two things without hesitating:

1. The government works for me, and I want them to stay the hell out of my daily life. That’s one of the reasons why being an American is infinitely cooler than being Chinese (for instance).
2. If there was a terrorist planning something in my neighborhood, and the NSA was able to catch them by wire tapping everyone on my block, I’d be all for it. Tap away.

Ambiguity makes me nuts….but I don’t have enough information to work my way through this issue.

Discuss.

"From this campus, every man and woman could see the black smoke rising from the Twin Towers," Bush said. "Within hours, your midshipmen were working side-by-side with the Coast Guard and Marine division of the New York City Fire Department," Bush told the midshipmen seated on a sunny football field at the academy outside New York City.

"Over the next nine days, you moved firefighters and police and emergency response teams into ground zero. You moved tons of food and water supplies. The heroic response to that terrible day showed the spirit of America, and the spirit of this fine academy."

Tags: Kings Point, USMMA, George Bush

President Bush briefly discussed the missile test with Russian President Vladimir Putin during an 18-minute phone call the Russian official placed to the American president on Monday. The leaders plan to remain in touch on the missile issue, said Kate Starr, a spokeswoman for the National Security Council.

Do you ever wish you could be a proverbial "fly on the wall" for discussions like that? I do….

…and here’s what I imagine the conversation was like.

President Bush (GB): Hello?
President Putin (VP): Hey, George…it’s Vladimir.
GB: Vlady…how are things over there?
VP: Fine. Listen, this isn’t a social call…
GB: Is this about allofmp3.com again? I’ve already used my connections to have the place raided. They’ve already been….Putin…their place? Ahh? How about that one?
VP: No, not allofmp3.com, for God’s sake. This is about the missiles that Jongy’s about to launch over there in North Korea.
GB: Oh, that. Yeah. Let me guess: you’re worried I’m going to bomb North Korea into the stone age. Oh, wait…they’re already there. Bahahahhahaha…
VP: Seriously, though. Your advisors are going to be fired up about this.
GB: I know. They interrupted my breakfast with the news.
VP: What are your thoughts?
GB: Well, I’ve been pretty clear on this whole thing. Either Jongy gets in line, and stops with the nucelar (sic) weapons routine, or I’m going to turn Trey Parker loose and fund another movie that belittles him.
VP: I don’t think that’s appropriate. They’re our allies, after all.
GB: Look, Vlady. We’ve been through this before. Twenty years ago, the Soviet Union was scary. Today, Russia isn’t very scary. I don’t care about your allies, and I don’t care about the price of rice in North Korea. Either he gets in line, or we’ll ensure that he’s…Putin…line.
VP: George, don’t….Bush…me.
GB: That was lame.
VP: Sorry. English is my second language.
GB: Yah, well your English is MY second language, too.
VP: So what are we going to do about North Korea?
GB: I don’t know, exactly. But count on it pissing you off.
VP: Right. I’ve got a meeting with the Russian mafia in ten minutes. Can I call you afterward?
GB: Sure. During the meeting, tell your wife I said ‘hi.’
VP: She hasn’t been involved since…
GB: I know, I know. I’m just kidding.
VP: Okay, I’m going to lose reception here in a second. You know how crappy the hallways in the Kremlin are.
GB: Yah. Don’t worry, it’s not like I’m going to invade North Korea in the next hour.
VP: Really? That’s great news!
GB: Got ya again. Just keep your TV on. Call me if you’ve got a problem with what we decide.
VP: George? Are you there…? George?
GB: Vlady…can you hear me?
VP: George?
GB: You look great in a fur cap.
VP: I heard that.
GB: Later.
VP: (static)

Tags: russia, north korea, george bush, putin, kim jong-il

I was listening to Security Now earlier today, and Leo Laporte was talking with Steve Gibson about cryptography. It’s a pretty interesting topic, and it carries some fairly heavy "ethical" concerns – as they pointed out in the podcast.

Essentially, both Steve and Leo were strongly against any ability by the government to maneuver around encryption for the sake of "national security." I understand this perspective; it’s in line with Orwell’s predictions in "1984." I think Leo put it succinctly by saying, in justification of NSA snooping, something like "the government is fairly benign now, but we don’t know what it’s going to be like in the future."

They don’t trust the government…and I’ll bet that if you asked ten random people on the street whether or not they trust the government, you’d get more than five (perhaps more) who don’t trust the government either. This isn’t a shocker to me, as you can’t hardly spend any time in the blogosphere without running across some reference to "Big Brother."

Ironically, I was driving across a bridge while I was listening to this podcast. The bridge itself isn’t anything spectacular: most people who drive on it each day probably couldn’t tell you that it was a bridge. In actuality, it’s no more than 25 or 30 feet above the freeway below, and isn’t more than a quarter of a mile long. But as I was listening to this, thinking about whether or not I trust the government, the following occurred to me: would I have driven on this bridge, without hesitating, if I didn’t trust the government?

There’s the line of thought, and it doesn’t stop with bridges. Every day we do things (eat in restaurants, drive on bridges, give money to banks, pay taxes) that require the government’s involvement to ensure our safety and satisfaction. We do most of these things without thinking twice, yet, if the government were to somehow make a mistake, what might the consequences be?

Let’s continue with the bridge example. If the portion of the government that sets architectural/engineering standards for public expressway bridges was staffed – due to the untrustworthy nature of the government – by complete buffoons, it would be conceivable that the bridge might be constructed in an unsafe way. What happens if the bridge fails while I’m driving across it? You can count on the results being far more disastrous to me than some dude in dark shades at the NSA knowing what type of pizza I ordered last night.

Before the rants start filling up the comments section, understand that I recognize the difference between privacy and the "public good." We pay taxes so that things like roads and bridges can be built, so that we know the restaurants we eat in are clean to an acceptable standard, and that when we deposit our money in a bank, we have a legal way to get that money back. But we do those things because we trust that the government is doing what’s in our best interest.

I’m not making an argument for boundless wire tapping or special "backdoors" in encryption schemes, just pointing out what I perceive to be a particularly ironic stance on governmental trust.

Let the flaming begin.

free speech, encryption, wire tapping, government, privacy, security now

1. I wasn’t entirely sure what the cartoons actually depicted
2. My initial tendency is to side with free speech, regardless of who’s “insulted”
3. It’s already been shown that publishing the cartoons results in death threats, and general denouncement by numerous Muslim leaders
4. I don’t have any particular desire to ignite a conservative/liberal debate here, because American politics simply aren’t involved

Well, I’ve changed my mind. After reading about the rioting in Nigeria today, and the subsequent attack on Christians, I’m too disturbed to keep my proverbial mouth shut.

I agree that some of the cartoons, as published, are potentially offensive – particularly if you hold Mohammed in high regard. As a Catholic, I’ve found several artistic depictions of Christ to be in poor taste over the years. That being said, I’d never propose that a privately-held institution doesn’t retain the right, through free speech, to print or publish such depictions. As an individual, it’s my right not to patron said institutions.

So it’s fairly obvious by now that I think the Danish newspaper was well within its rights to publish the depictions of Mohammed, as much as they might displease Muslims.

The irony of the whole situation here is that the very “attributes” of Mohammed that are considered offensive (rejecting suicide bombers in heaven because there are “no virgins left,” his violent nature, his association with terrorism and unlawfulness) come as the result of some very strongly perceived stereotypes. I’m not prepared to speak on whether or not Islam is a religion of peace, but I can say with certainty that it’s not perceived as such…by the majority of non-Muslims.

There is no question that suicide missions are carried out in the name of Islam every day. Nobody wonders whether or not many Muslims hate Jews; they know it. The word “infidel” was only used in cartoons, until Muslim extremists started getting frontpage press. And now, Muslims are burning Christians alive because they’re angered by these cartoons.

Don’t you get it, guys? Non-Muslims around the world would be far more likely to write off the cartoons as useless dribble, if you didn’t insist on proving them right. Boycotts, demonstrations, letters, posters…that’s all fine. It’s an overreaction, in my opinion, but it’s fine. When you start killing people because they’re affiliated with a faith other than yours….you’ve just added validity to every aspect of the cartoons that you’re protesting.

If it upsets you that Mohammed was portrayed as a violent dude with a machete (presumably because he wasn’t that..?), then why bust out your machetes to cut down people who might agree?

I sincerely hope I’m overreacting, because I’m concerned that this is yet another step toward an all-out war between Muslims and everyone else. We’re all infidels, it would seem…and if it’s a Muslim’s duty to eradicate infidels, this is going to get ugly.

My thoughts and prayers are with those families, across the globe, whose lives are being turned upside down because of the artistic opinions of twelve Danes. After all – the people beating down your door, occupying your streets, dowsing your body in gasoline and lighting you on fire…they were insulted by some cartoons in a newspaper.

Just remember that.

So, Michael Smith, you’re the target of my first “rant” in an awfully long while.

Since I read your article on the race of coaches in the NFL on my 9300, and I don’t have pictures enabled by default, I didn’t have any idea what you look like. In fact, it wasn’t until I dashed to my desktop to begin writing THIS, that I saw your picture, and realized that you’re African American. Immediately, I began to wonder if you didn’t secretly bid for a coaching position with one of these teams, and your rejection was the underlying motivation for the article…I was hoping that was the case, anyway.

When are you people (disclaimer: “you people” refers to you people in the media, not you African Americans) going to stop using the race card as leverage for the front page? The NFL’s policy on minority coaches is fine; I don’t have a problem requiring teams to interview minorities before making decisions. Sure, I think it could be a little more sweeping to be fair to guys like…I dunno…me. Why don’t I get a shot at interviewing with each team? Nevermind, this is going off-topic.

I understand the league’s requirements for interviews, and while I’d find it extremely insulting if I were an African American coach, I’m not. It’s fine. What’s not fine is that you’ve decided to keep score of the number of minority coaches being hired, and evaluating the league’s “performance” from that metric. Here’s my favorite quote from your article:

Minority coaches haven’t gone oh-for-eight on the open job market but rather oh-for-one eight times. The NFL’s not adding to its embarrassingly small roster of minority head coaches was not so much one company hiring eight white men for the same level job. It was more like eight individual corporations each selecting one white man over several worthy candidates, both white and black, for one position.

Michael, I’m confused. Your articles aren’t riddled with grammatical mistakes, you work as a writer for ESPN…aren’t we to assume some semblance of intelligent thought goes into your articles? I recognize that my sarcasm doesn’t do much to prove my point, so here’s a question whose answer will prove my point.

How many white runningbacks are there in the NFL?

Quick, now. You’re about to say Mike Alstott…but he doesn’t do all that much running. I’m waiting. Okay, how about this one instead then…

How many white wide receivers are there in the NFL? You’ll be able to come up with a few more this time, no doubt. But I’ll bet the percentage is lower than that of African American coaches to white coaches. Reason? MERIT. MERIT. MERIT. And yet, I haven’t run across an article from Pasquarelli, complaining that too few white athletes have been given a chance. Well, that being said, why would he? The NFL doesn’t have a policy for THAT.

Here’s another gem from your article:

Look, if you dropped the names of the 10 most qualified assistant coaches in a hat and each team drew, at the very least a few of them would come up with a minority. But it isn’t that simple. We don’t live in a meritocracy. There’s a network in place that, unfortunately, most minorities aren’t plugged into.

Okay, you work for ESPN. You’ve got every sports stat from the beginning of time at your very finger tips, so I’m going to put this burden back on you. Compile a list of statistics to justify your “most qualified assistant coaches,” compare them to similar statistics for coaches who were hired instead, and back up your argument with some fact. Unfortunately, in today’s day and age, I’m about as quick to cite racial discrimination as causation for someone’s unemployment as I am to apply for a head coaching job in the NFL (I’m not planning on applying for a head coaching job).

So now the underlying problem here. By writing the article that you did, you effectively precluded any responsible discussion on the topic; no white guy wants to argue – especially with a black man – about racial discrimination, lest they be labeled a racist. I don’t have a racist bone in my body. Not one. But I like to think that the majority of my bones try to act in a logical way, so I’ll take the criticism.

I want the best coach running my Chargers. If it turns out that that coach is African American, Mexican, or Asian…awesome. I couldn’t care less. I just want to win.

Oh, and in closing: if I were Asian or Mexican, I’d be super pissed. Not only do I not have adequate representation in NFL coaching positions, but I don’t even have a writer representing my personal interests on ESPN.