I have to point out that the services mentioned as competition by Knight near the end of the article are more or less unrelated to the services offered by Comcast.
Comcast in Colorado Springs offers cable television, cable internet, and telephone service.
Dish Network provides satellite television (okay, I'll grant him that this one competes with one part of Comcast--though they are not the same service).
Amazon Prime provides free quick shipping and television content (amongst other things), but no connectivity.
Google Plus is a social network, kind of like Facebook except with approximately 12 active users.
This, folks, is why we are a technological backwater with high rates. If our elected leaders don't know the difference between these services, how can we expect them to negotiate an effective contract on our behalf?
This is ridiculous on so many levels.
In response to Mr. Haran: actually, the rule of law does not dictate what a privately-operated panel can or cannot decide pertaining to its members. Hybl and the panel did not attempt to incarcerate or otherwise impose civil penalties on Ms. Harding. They only barred her from their organization, which is not an action having anything to do with the "rule of law."
They expelled her from the group, which is completely different from ignoring "law." If they had wronged her contractually by expelling her, then she would have been entitled to sue them in court for breach of contract, and she would assumably have won reentry to the group or some sort of compensation if it was found that they did in fact violate their agreement with her.
Furthermore, it's pretty hard to argue that this was "class-based," given that Ms. Harding has more or less admitted (http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/sport…) to her knowledge of the attack against Kerrigan (and by extension, her involvement). Harding was participating in a jealousy-induced tantrum that resulted in a physical assault against someone else. That's pretty damning. It's entirely understandable that the USFSA would want to part ways with such a loose cannon.
To the writer:
I can't comment on the main body of this review since I haven't seen this show, but I am uniquely qualified to comment on the last paragraph. I'm the communications director at our town's largest performing arts organization. The administrative folks at TheatreWorks are probably too polite to respond, so I'll attempt to offer a thought here.
The entire business of theatre, and indeed, performing arts in general, is based on a public-private partnership, wherein sponsors provide support in order to make the cost of tickets more accessible and make the art produced on the stage possible. Disparaging TheatreWorks' method of recognizing that sponsorship (and possibly causing the sponsor to feel alienated) demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the performance arts industry and the sources of funding for our efforts. Like it or not, both corporate and individual sponsors play a vital role in the quality, frequency, and accessibility of arts throughout the United States. This is particularly true in Colorado Springs, where public funding is extremely limited. Using this public forum as an artistic reviewer to complain about that system is highly questionable since administrative decisions don't usually fall within the scope of a critic's responsibility.
There is a point at which sponsor recognition can be overbearing and obtrusive, but it's difficult to imagine a scenario in which TheatreWorks, with their artistic sensibilities, would be prone to that level of promotion for the sponsor.
Finally, I'll just mention that it's especially odd to have that final paragraph, given that this very publication, the Independent, is a primary supporter of arts throughout our region, including TheatreWorks. I can imagine that the Indy genuinely appreciates the recognition that it receives for its support of the performing arts, and it's perplexing that you would disparage TheatreWorks' efforts in this regard.
The Independent has never made claims about being unbiased, so judging them on that basis is rather pointless. Our local daily, on the other hand, makes such claims all the time, whilst simultaneously posting some of the most conservative angles around. At least the Independent is honest with itself. If you don't know what you're going to get when reading the Indy, then you've been under a rock.
As far as Morse, he was a duly elected representative of our district who did nothing illegal. Recalls are typically reserved for ethical or legal violations by a representative—not merely because 11% of the voters in a district disliked the elected official's politics. This recall sets a most unfortunate precedent for representatives on all sides of Colorado's fences.
This is great—congrats to all the organizations that are part of this year's program.
All content © Copyright 2016, The Colorado Springs Independent
Website powered by Foundation