Why do you assume what it was that the speaker assumed. The speaker encouraged everyone to contact their representative and encourage funding of the arts. Did he preface that by saying, “I know you all agree with me … ?” I presume not. My assumption would be that he was stating his opinion and eincouraging those who agree with him to follow his suggestion. That doesn’t have to be everyone who could hear, and in particular it doesn’t have to be you.
And why do you think his exhortation required rebuttal? Do you think people shouldn’t contacted their elected representative about issues that concern them?
Was it polite for him to do? Would it have been equally polite for me to present my view to the crowd in line? In other words, why did politeness mandate that his view can be shared with the crowd, but not mine?
While I agree with you in principle, frankly it’s because you should know better. How many people go to college football games and complain about the amount of money the state is paying the coach (which, it appears, is more than the government is giving the WNO for almost every major program)?
You didn’t say the offense was a lack of politeness. You said it was becasue he assumed you agreed with him, which is not at all evident; and that you didn’t feel able to rebut him, and I asked why you would feel the need to rebut someone who encourages people to contact their elected representatives.
IMO, the reason you felt the need to rebut him was that you for some reason imagined that he was directing YOU to call your representative and encourage a vote contrary to your beliefs. IMO that impression was solely in your head.
Also, it was your wife who made you shut up, not the guy. So maybe you should addressthe question of why you couldn’t speak your piece to her.
No. You discounted the analogy of: going to a Catholic church and being shocked at being told to write your congressman.
I’m saying it’s a good analogy. An opera-goer does not necessarily think the gubmint should shore opera up, nor does a person against abortion want their belief to be enforced by the gubmint (see John Kerry).
I think we can all agree that there is at least one party in this sad spectacle that deserves more funding: Bricker’s wife. Poor woman. Please people, give as much as you can. She keeps him off your streets and out of your bars.
True. But there was widespread agreement here that she was correct to do so. Her response is, in essence: I’d rather avoid contentious situations, no matter who is correct.
I agree that smug assumptions about another person’s political beliefs is annoying, and that there’s nothing especially wrong with speaking up to counter such assumptions, nor anything hypocritical about **Bricker’s **position.
But I’m surprised that this sort of thing happens to you rarely enough that it could ruin your night. I am assumed to have a particular political or religious belief in an annoying context at least a couple of times a year, as I imagine the many Americans are. Your suggestion in the OP that this is some kind of trait endemic to the SDMB and liberals at the opera is…strangely naive. It’s part of virtually every human group in innumerable contexts.
I did not know that. Well, one more reason for me to remain non-Catholic. I like my churches to shut the hell up about what the political authority should be doing.
I don’t think the Kennedy Center (or any of the places in large cities) needs government support.
I generally don’t think that the government should be supporting arts by improving access by keeping tickets at the $50-$300 range instead of the $$100-$1000 range.
But I think YMMV.
I also think that trying to drum up support for the opera at an opera isn’t out of bounds any mroe than trying to drum up support for school funding at a PTA meeting would be out of bounds.
We’re talking about the Kennedy Center, they wouldn’t have a problem. Neither would any similar venues in places like NYC, San Francisco, Chicago and LA
I thought Bricker was a lawyer. Solo practitioner IIRC.
I once had someone tell me that they were supporting the arts by buying tickets to watch concerts. It was like THEY were subsidizing the GOVERNMENT desire to maintain an orchestra in the DC area. :smack:
I’ve never been but a lot of sci fi types seem pretty libertarian.
I am pro-gun and when I go to gun shows I constantly hear opinions I disagree with. It would be silly to try and argue with them and I’m sure I’ not the only liberal gun owners at these shows.
No we haven’t. Because its not true.
By that rationale, isn’t the existence of a telecommunications system or electrical utilities or new shows also a public good? Why don’t we subsidize those? Oh yeah because they don’t need a subsidy. Neither does the Kennedy Center.
Thats different, because you are providing free access to people who might not otherwise have access to a private collection of pandas, monets or dinosaur bones. The Opera here costs about $200 for good seats and $80 for pretty bad seats (the $50 seats are either obstructed view or so far from the stage that you can touch the back wall) and you have to buy them way in advance, you can’t expect to show up on the night of the show and get anywhere near decent seats. This tells me that there is room to move the price of the tickets up a bit.
I think if you asked bricker about the Smithsonian, he would support government subsidies to ensure free access.
Pfft, I’m still playing a game of diplomacy that started in high school.
But only if Obama wins reelection and refuses to repeal obamacare.
I don’t see a lot of poor people at the opera, at least not on the weekends. I think they might have discount student tickets during weekdays but tickets generally start at $50.
So they don’t really need it right?
Frankly, I think that large city operas should consider subsidizing smaller city venues.
