a kinda question, but off topic. so ignore this if you like.
I don't follow Seattle politics much, because (1) Seattle is two hours away and I rarely go there (2) it's infuriating.
But yesterday I happened to hear part of a NPR discussion with callers-in about a hot button topic in Seattle. Apparently the Sonics want to have their stadium (if that's the right word) renovated, and they want the city to pay for it through taxes. The guy who owns Starbucks owns the Sonics. Apparently we haven't been drinking enough lattes; he needs our tax dollars.
So people are calling in expressing their opinions, and the host is playing devil's advocate (or maybe he's just an idiot, who knows), when one guy -- strongly against the plan to pay for the stadium, even though the Sonics are threatening to move -- is asked a question. The host says: So do you object to public money being spent on the opera house and the symphony and museums too? (No, was the answer.) Host: Well, how is that different?
At this point I was yelling at the radio, but nobody heard me. So let me rephrase the question, which has been nagging at me ever since. Then it will out of my head (and maybe in yours, but hey, you're still reading).
What's the difference between a private, for-profit, elitist sporting enterprise which pays its players millions and millions of dollars a year and charges admission to watch men chase a ball up and down a court (on the one hand) and public, non-profit, cultural-educational institutions where salaries and benefits are miniscule in comparison (on the other)?
Why is this not a no-brainer?
No more politics on the radio for me. Bad for the blood pressure.