Ramona School District Uses Call System for Political Message

Posted by Tim Glinatsis | Politics | Tuesday 22 April 2008 11:30 am

The school district here in my home town has a pretty efficient system for making automated phone calls to parents of students in the district. We get phone calls from my daughter’s school fairly frequently, usually about things like:

  • 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: , , , , ,

The Athletic Enterprise

Posted by Tim Glinatsis | Humor, Politics, Sports, The Ether | Saturday 31 March 2007 8:42 am

Parker and I were talking yesterday about an article that I’d written for The Tech - MIT’s student newspaper - back when we were there. It seems their archive link is busted, so I’ll post the article here for posterity.

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:, , , , , ,

Nancy Pelosi is Not Qualified: Reason 4,254

Posted by Tim Glinatsis | Humor, Politics | Wednesday 21 February 2007 5:55 pm

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:, , ,

Announcing Turnip Soup!

Posted by Tim Glinatsis | Humor, Music, Politics, Sports, Tech, The Web | Sunday 28 January 2007 3:49 pm

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.

  • Apple computers: itunes 1click subscribe
  • Windows: iTunes 1-click subscribe
  • Add Turnip Soup to ODEO
  • Add to Google
  • Subscribe in podnova

technorati tags:, ,

Is Personal Safety a Civil Liberty?

Posted by Tim Glinatsis | Politics | Thursday 17 August 2006 4:24 pm

During a meeting earlier today, my MDA buzzed the long buzz. I can tell by the duration of the vibration what type of notification I’ve received: short buzzes are incoming phone calls; medium buzzes are text messages; long buzzes are email messages, and really long buzzes are appointment reminders.

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.

Next Page »