I'm kind of tired of fighting through articles where the writer attacks groups by spitting out their labels like some moldy food. Not every market decision has some detestable political story. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
I see Uber differently. There is a desire that Uber satisfies - the desire to have reliable car service in urban areas. Taxis are supposed to fill this desire, but their business model has not changed - ever. A 20 minute wait for a cab that is two blocks away once was acceptable. People learned that they don't have to accept it. Yet, the cab companies had their opportunity to change, and they didn't.
For several years software writers have offered Taxi companies the concept that they could create a company app which would link the rider and the driver, thus reducing the need for dispatchers, building customer loyalty, and giving their employees more ownership of their work. Every option on Uber was offered to taxi companies. The app creators thought small - presenting ideas to big city cab companies who chose to not evolve, or not spend the money. In spite of the inactivity or lack of enthusiasm from the cab companies, the idea grew and evolved until it became Uber. It's here. What's next?
Taxi companies can fight back and implement a YellowCab app. They can do more than post a phone number above a urinal. Or they can hire lobbyists to fight over libertarianism vs corporatism while also banning the reprehensible practice of latte-sipping.
Chris Haire, that argument seemed to dissect the difference between "use" and "practice." Is that enough to allow a unilateral change? Also, what is the penalty in use for that earlier ordinance which required bars to police their sidewalks and parking areas? What I am getting at is if the bar loses a license due to something like that, can the city place the new restrictions on the bar when the license is renewed?
Will somebody please point out where in the legislation it allows for current businesses to remain with the 2am closing? I see no "grandfather" clause in this document.
If there is no "grandfather" clause, what would prevent the police from enforcing this with all existing businesses?
It's about the cover. Rolling Stone is one book you do "judge by the cover." There are books about the Rolling Stone covers. Being on the cover elevates an artist to a level above their music. I was not offended by the article, but as a musician who will never reach the lofty heights of a RS cover, this retouched, beautiful placement of a terrorist there, does bother me.
It's about the cover. The same as Playboy is about the centerfold. Would you stick the Bomber in there too because we as Americans need to be confronted with these truths everywhere? How would the African American community react if the last issue of Ebony featured a wonderful cover shot of a smiling Zimmerman smoking a Cuban cigar dockside along with an article helping us all understand him better?
I judge Rolling Stone in part by its covers. This one was a failure, even though the piece was well done.
mat catastrophe that is funny. I agree. And I have tried to call the club from my home and cell phone only to get a) busy signal b) no answer c) a person answering who said something incomprehensible and then hung up. d) a person who, when I asked if there was music that night, said "yes" and hung up.
So if a club can't utilize its phone in a way that benefits someone trying to make a decision where to go that night or some upcoming night, a web site might be a good idea. Dontcha think?
All Comments »
Powered by Foundation
© Copyright 2016,
Charleston City Paper