Well, Mark, as far as what you call the 'gag order' - it's hardly unusual that Google wouldn't want anyone making public announcements about a project willy-nilly. No, city officials don't work for Google, but Google doesn't work for the city, either. Google is a business, and a business in a very competitive field. Timing can be everything when it comes to the public release of information - why would Google want to risk having a major campaign destroyed because some politician wants to score points? (Witness the way Pat Roberts chose to steal the thunder from KUMed about their new designation, as though he could take credit for it.)
And those tax subsidies? Have those other companies never had any sort of tax or competitive advantage? I'm betting they have - if nothing else, cable companies were given a huge competitive advantage for years by virtue of being given complete monopoly.
And why should all taxpayers 'be forced to subsidize' service? Because that's how taxes work. My tax dollars go into schools that I have no use for, for roads in neighborhoods I'll never visit, for parks that I don't use. In a thousand ways every day, every one is contributing towards things they don't need or want - and benefiting from the contributions of others doing the same thing. It's kind of how it works in the world.
You know, it would be different if there weren't already penalties for refusing to take the test.
You can already be fined for refusing. Refusing can be punished by having your license suspended for one year, and then you'll be required to have an interlock device for another year (and that's for a first offense - the penalties get bigger if it's not the first offense).
And of course, if you're convicted of the DUI anyway (and the odds are good that you will be), you're probably going to face stiffer penalties than if you had complied.
I guess Brownback & Co. thought they needed a break from legislating the uterus. Maybe sometime they'll get around to doing something useful.
Good news, but I'm amazed that Kansas got around to this, and will be equally amazed if Brownback gets around to signing it. Has anyone checked to see if there are any provisions involving the uterus in the bill? I was under the impression that no laws could be passed in Kansas without one...
Hey, Pot_smokers_on_the_highway_to_HELL - for what it's worth, I do believe you mean 'defend America against these losers,' not 'defend american against these losers.'
terrorist_love_pot also shows a distinct lack of familiarity with basic grammar, spelling and punctuation.
Methinks the pot 'tis calling the kettle black.
Absolutely agreed. And part of me says that people who don't understand the inherent risks as well as the rewards of a true craft beer should perhaps stick to fizzy yellow mass market beer. Hey, it's not exciting, but it's always the same, bottle after bottle. After bottle. After bottle...
Asking for a tweak or accommodation is one thing, but asking for a re-working that will substantially change the item or disrupts the kitchen (or bar) is another. Unfortunately, there's no way to say "here is the point where the customer is being unreasonable" because it's going to vary depending on the restaurant, the dish, and the request.
But after reading the thread on Chowhound - in that particular situation, I think the customer was the unreasonable one. If you're ordering a specialty or signature drink from the bar menu, leave the thing alone. If you don't like the ingredients in a particular drink, choose something else, especially when you're dealing with a drink that has multiple ingredients (and sometimes out-of-the-ordinary ingredients, at that). Balancing flavors properly can be a trick, and removing or substituting can change the drink completely - and not necessarily for the better. While it's easy to think "hey, make what the customer wants, and if it sucks, it's on them," but I can just about guarantee that when that customer tells their friends "Hey, I had the blah-blah-blah at that bar, and oh my god, it was the most awful thing I've ever had in my life," they leave out the part about the changes they demanded.
Re: “Does the city need a new, billion-dollar Kansas City International?”
"But Ford says the concession argument is dead on arrival for local travelers, who typically migrate beyond security before they have a need for nice restaurants and bars." I think Ford is missing the point. Local travelers 'migrate beyond security' not because they just love the options on the other side, or even prefer them. They do it because they don't want to risk being stuck on the wrong side of security, fighting a long line when their plane is boarding (or worse, departing).
No matter how you try to spin it, the layout at KCI stinks. A new, single-terminal airport would be outrageously expensive, but so are repairs, maintenance, and work-arounds at the existing airport. It seems like it would be six of one, half dozen of the other in the long run, or even the not so long run. Why not move towards getting rid of an annoying, clunky design in the process? Sure, from the outside, KCI looks great on paper - beautiful curved lines, a theoretically sleek flow from one terminal to the next - but it doesn't work.