Britt RObson wrote: >>Thought it was interesting that Mr. Eisenbeis parades forth the integrity of the New York Times (and curiously bashes the illiteracy of our local burgs, which support more print media per capita than most anywhere in the country--but that's another story) in the same post in which he wonders why the Red Sox are drawing such exorbitant bids--one of which is from a consortium of interests that includes the New York Times.
I'm hardly the first to "parade forth" the integrity of the New York Times--nor the first to ridicule the Strib. I'm sorry if it stank of elitism, because I hate that in others. I was just trying to point out the relatively obvious conflict of interest that always exists between papers and the sports they cover, and now I realize Craig was being a little disinenguous/rhetorical. Consider me chastened, but you miss my point: If pro baseball is so screwed up, then why are the Boston Red Sox--a team with a stadium that is problematic, to say the least--being courted by such serious money? We're supposed to believe that the Twins, who have so much to recommend them (as the Strib has nicely essayed), will save MLB by being sacrificed on the altar of contraction? The point of which is this: It's every bit as relevant as ever to ask why a new stadium--or contraction--will make a damn bit of difference to anyone anywhere. If we're going to lose the Twins, I'd like to know the real reasons why. Hans Eisenbeis Kingfield _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
