Does anyone remember the Two Keys Tavern incident a few months ago? Telling Bar security they are responsible for policing the sidewalks and parking lots will end bad, period. With every bar in the city taking on security just think of the idiots that will suddenly be empowered for the first time in their more than likely pathetic life. Expect bloody beat downs and a spike in covered-up sexual assaults. Great Job gang
"It shall be the responsibility of Late Night Entertainment Establishment personel (sic) to clear..."
That last word is very problematic. Are these bouncers going to be able to use batons and truncheonst? CS gas? Tasers? How about leashed snarling dogs?
Police are a legitimate use of tax funds. And these businesses definitely pay taxes.
IDK, all for increased safety here.
But this ordinance stinks of the City Powers That Be tendency to sterilize King of any flavor or character.
Much of Lower King could be a minimall anywhere.
Upper King has a vibrant and diverse mix that attracts crowds. Silly me,I always thought sidewalks were for hanging out. And what about the buskers and street musicians? There were some on Upper King tonight. They add great vibes to the street scene. Will that be illegal too?
FWIW, Savannah and Asheville have great and much more street music and atmosphere in and around bars.
Charleston finally starts loosening up but noooo have to put the Smackdown on that!
The City won't be happy until all of King is the soulless wasteland that much of South of Calhoun is. All so Edna and Al Fannypack of Ohio can feel "safe" waddling up King.
I guess the City will just ban bars next and install a KOA campground instead.
Travis have u been to upper King, at 1:30 on a Saturday night lately? Not trying to pick an argument, but I would like to know.
Statism? It's the opposite of "statism." This is the privatization of a basic government function. Isn't this the stuff your libertarian wet dreams are made of?
Also, the ordinance gives the responsibility to the establishment to police the sidewalks and parking lots, but it doesn't require that that function be performed by an employee. I'm sure the responsibility (and probably any associated liabilities) can be contracted out. This ordinance looks like a great opportunity for someone looking to start a security firm.
It is interesting to note that, it is the city's smoking ban which is putting so many people on a narrow stretch of concrete in front of AC's, which was a popular smoking bar long before upper King became so wildly popular.
But there is a problem, please anyone take a stroll up King St at 1:30am on any Saturday before you disagree. In the long run closing King to traffic on certain nights from Cannon to Radcliffe may be the only solution.
I do have to agree with Haire on the gist of his article; if the police can barely contain the drunken masses (which is true, I've seen it), how can private enforcement hope to cope short of cracking skulls like security at a Stones concert?
In this morning's P&C, big article about the how closing the sidewalks around hospitals has forced smokers into parks and neighborhoods to smoke.
Who could have seen that coming?
Here's my question: If the city has such power over the sidewalks, why is it abdicating that same responsibility when it comes to bars? Will Hanks have to have same requirements as AC's.
Statism's really cool until it affects you, eh?
IF the bars have to provide that service in conjunction with the officers, then I'm all for it. A bit of shared responsibility between the city and the "Late Night Entertainment Establishment" would be a good thing.
I hope the same rules apply for the Spoleto events too?
Did city council not just vote against providing the "entertainment" areas with extra police? I believe they did......
If we can enforce the drinking age we would be A-Ok. Bars that do it, do not have issues nearly as much as the bars that do not.
And as far as the line about lawsuits, and frantic 911 calls "THE SKY IS FALLING, THE SKY IS FALLING"
You are correct. Drunks are not the most reasonable people to speak with. You will either have bar security getting hurt or stepping over the line and hurting a drunk. Either way the Police will need to come anyway.
"conspiracy?" It's known that Ailes is trying to stick Benghazi to Clinton. Fox News devoted an entire day of programming to Benghazi THIS WEEK in order to gin up reaction and create sensation. It's manufactured nonsense.
Again, do you get this worked up about redacted, edited talking points for consumer-facing policy on other topics? No? Ok.
hahaha It really matters very little what i want. The investigations continue. I suggest you vent your passions at those who can do something about it.
I never mentioned any conspiracy. Take a look at your posts and see who looks like
the conspiracy theorist.
I'm not paranoid. and yes I am distrustful of those we give the reigns of power. No matter the party. As an American i think we can do no less.
When i was a liberal (waste of time btw) at least we didn't accept blind trust in our elected officals just cause we might have shared some views. Its very confounding.
I would say your gonna have much bigger fish to fry as far as your conspiracy Ails theory.
If Mrs. Clinton does decide to run... She will have to face a lot of this in the primaries. I know plenty of Democratic Presidential wannabes are just rubbin their hands in glee.
I bet Biden is just drooling over the chances.
You do realize you're demanding to know how the talking points for one Sunday's news cycle came to become edited, and you DEMAND to know this because it's the underpinning of a vast [something something] conspiracy? EVERY SINGLE FACT leading up to and following the incident is known, and your interest is in the press-facing spin? And you're THIS INTERESTED in press-facing spin in every other political issue? No? Ah. Ok.
The truth of the matter became apparent within 10 days of that Sunday news cycle. You are inflamed for mistaken theories and bureaucratic inefficiency and CYA personnel decisions? Fascinating.
Please remember that the night of September 11th, Mitt Romney blamed the President for the attack.
Continue your paranoia and distrust.
ABC, NBC, CNN and CBS have finally taken the issues invovled in the attack more serious.
When it became clear last fall that the CIA’s now discredited Benghazi talking points were flawed, the White House said repeatedly the documents were put together almost entirely by the intelligence community, but White House documents reviewed by Congress suggest a different story.
ABC News has obtained 12 different versions of the talking points that show they were extensively edited as they evolved from the drafts first written entirely by the CIA to the final version distributed to Congress and to U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice before she appeared on five talk shows the Sunday after that attack.
White House emails reviewed by ABC News suggest the edits were made with extensive input from the State Department.
The edits included requests from the State Department that references to the Al Qaeda-affiliated group Ansar al-Sharia be deleted as well references to CIA warnings about terrorist threats in Benghazi in the months preceding the attack.
So much for it bein just a right wing Ails conspiracy.
Everyday something new comes out..this is a mess.
Hicks did what he thought he had to do to try to keep his job. That's why he is a whistleblower.
I'm not looking for anything specific myself except i'd like the whole truth.
Not sure we will ever get that.
Fun stuff, bro! Hicks helped write the accountability review report. I guess that exhaustive inter-agency report with, sadly non-Fox agents reporting, is not a thorough examination of what happened.
you're looking for someone to say, "Obama wanted to win the next election?" Is that what you're looking for? Or, "They have weapons of mass destruction?" What is it you're looking for? And please be EXPLICIT.
Hicks sounds like a whistleblower to me.
Gregory Hicks, who became the top diplomat in Libya after Ambassador Christopher Stevens was killed, suggested at Wednesday's House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing that he was demoted and otherwise punished or making it clear he believed the Obama administration was withholding or ignoring key facts about the Benghazi attacks and response.
Hicks said there was no demonstration and that top State Department officials had been told that, and he told the committee he was "stunned" and "embarrassed" by Rice's televised account.
Boehner tried to take a less confrontational tone on Thursday, but nonetheless said the White House was refusing to make public e-mails and other documents he says show the political calculation behind the Rice TV appearance and other elements of the administration's Benghazi response.
"The White House continues to claim it only made stylistic changes to talking points used by Susan Rice, ignoring the fact that senior White House officials directed the changes being made" to those talking points, Boehner said.
There seems to be a lot more that is going to come out, and evidence was withheld.
I really would just like to see us get it all out in the light.
If it is all just an Ails concocation that will come out too and Republicans will look ridiculous.
Something smells really rotten here.
As a teenager i watched the watergate hearings, I couldn't wait to see Nixon get his.
What happened to being a liberal and always being skeptical of what goverment is up to? Questioning authority?
Did it change just cause one of their own is President?
You're wrong about that, I think. Read up on this issue. The rigid adherence to Benghazi as a right wing meme and divisive attack issue is 100% Roger Ailes' baby. There's no organic, grass roots push. There are no whistle blowers from inside. No inter-agency squabbling. No Congressional furor. This IS Roger Ailes trying to paint Hillary as incompetent and anti-American, and paint Obama as weak. That you agree with his perspective doesn't change the fact that it's his perspective that provides fuel to this "fire."
He's keeping the discussion petty, obstinate, false, rhetorical and intentionally misleading... when the only issue open for debate is the gobsmackingly mundane topic of Susan Rice's comments on Sunday shows about why this happened.
Other networks report the news. Fox invents it and uses it to divide and drive agendas.
Should the way intra-agency flaks collate and disseminate public-facing information be tighter and more scrutinized? Perhaps. There is your tempest in a teapot. That you see more to this is because you want to.
There are Democrats asking for more hearings as well. The truth is coming out and its not due to some Ails spin.
Now whether most Americans care, that is a different story.
I presume you are a professor or a retired ambassador based on your command of foreign policy, political zeitgeist, cultural/media phenomena, and language usage.
So, seeing as how you're an expert, could you please elucidate your lingering concerns regarding Benghazi that weren't addressed in the report produced by the Accountability Review Board, the Congressional hearing convened by Republicans (as mentioned in the article above), and disclosure of all defense, military and intelligence emails post-event?
Do you know who Roger Ailes is, and what his agenda and tactics are? Say anything enough, assert its truth despite all contrary facts, pick apart peripheral minutiae, and it becomes the truth in the minds of the gullible.
Do you know who Hillary Clinton is and what happens in 2016? Well then, I have just connected the dots for you.
Powered by Foundation
© Copyright 2013,
Charleston City Paper