Editorials and Opinions

Chuck Baldwin • September 1, 2015

Over the summer, a new breed of untested chemical drugs hit the streets in major cities across the U.S. with a highly misleading name, adding to the potential harm these drugs can do. Called “synthetic marijuana” or “synthetic pot” by the media, these chemicals have absolutely nothing to with the relatively harmless THC found in real marijuana. A better name would be “demon dust” as it shares much more in common with “angel dust,” the PCP derivative infamously used to lace marijuana and tobacco.

These new chemicals got the name because they affect the same sensors in the brain that THC affects. The scientific name is “synthetic cannabinoid receptor agonists,” and they were invented in the lab for research purposes, initially by professor John W. Huffman for use with HIV/AIDS, multiple sclerosis and chemotherapy. But these particular compounds have never been tested on humans. “It bothers me that people are so stupid as to use this stuff,” he is quoted as saying.

Given the general knowledge that no one has ever died from an overdose of real marijuana, the continued use of the name “synthetic marijuana” is a powerful and potentially deadly misnomer. How many users actually believe it is synthesized THC and therefore as safe as the real thing? They smoke too much and die — rather than fall asleep or eat a bag of chips.

The bad name is also damaging the reputation of the real thing. Marijuana has made great strides in becoming legal in the U.S., effectively decreasing the number of criminals, lowering crime, and offering a safe, mellow, legal alternative to hard drugs and alcohol, the most abused drug in America and the cause of more domestic and street violence than any other drug.

The District of Columbia legalized marijuana for recreational use by anyone over the age of 21 in February, yet there is no legal way to acquire it in the city. That defeats its purpose, since the law, as it is, continues to create criminals out of everyday citizens and very likely inadvertently pushes more people to try the dangerous drugs that the media erroneously calls “synthetic marijuana.”

The media needs to stop referring to these killer chemical compounds as “synthetic marijuana,” and the District needs to continue thumbing its nose at the Feds and get legal pot on the street.

Gary Tischler • August 31, 2015

So little time, so much to do.

This was a momentous week in the world.  President Barack Obama gave a sharp, strong speech at American University scorning his critics and defending the treaty with Iran that would, he claimed, prevent Iran from ever getting a nuclear bomb. Jon Stewart retired from his own self-titled pioneering, one-of-a-kind political comedy show. 

Jennifer Aniston reportedly (via “Access Hollywood”) managed to get married to her very long-time fiancé, the actor Justin Theroux.

Oh, and the Republican Party held its first primary debate, featuring the top 10 candidates in the polls, on Fox News Channel in Cleveland, site of the 2016 GOP National Convention next summer.  You could call Thursday’s debate the Trump-a-thon, because so much of the world’s and the media’s attention was focused on mogul and GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump, before, during and after the debate.   

If you checked out the next-day coverage of the debate, you could get 50 different opinions about who had “won” the debate: Trump won by remaining Trump; Trump lost by remaining Trump. According to various views, Trump suffered self-inflicted wounds and imploded. Trump triumphed by never retreating, always repeating variations of his mantra of strength, building a wall, making America strong, bravado and bluster on a grand scale.  Many political strategists and commentators thought that among the big 10, the youthful Florida senator Marco Rubio had made the strongest impression—although he did it with making statements that sounded perilously closed to canned campaign speeches and slogans delivered in an emphatic style.

No grand (or detailed) policy  or ideological initiatives were offered, either by Trump or any of the other nine candidates, plus the junior debate held earlier featuring the seven candidates who did not make the cutoff.  By all accounts, businesswoman Carly Fiorina made a strong impression in that debate, which included the likes of Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal , South Carolina Senator Lindsay Graham and a host of formers: former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum, former New York governor George Pataki, former Texas governor Rick Perry and former Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore.

This was a GOP night—the party and Fox News, the network that prides itself on being your every-day American objective news organization without a hint of bias, showing off a strong and very, very large field of GOP candidates, all of whom were trying to keep their heads above the Trump tidal wave.

Even though this was a within-the-family debate, this was also still a Fox News debate, in the sense that the moderators—steady and disarming Chris Wallace, Bret Baier with his sharp inquisitor questioning, and Megyn Kelly, the network’s bright, blonde commentary supernova—had something of an agenda.

Trump’s astonishing rise in the polls without a noticeable lack of momentum in spite of outrageous gaffes that could have buried three campaigns have alarmed conservative establishment regulars, and Fox News, owned by Rupert Murdoch, is likely in that camp.  From the outset, the moderators seemed on a mission to put some holes in the Trump blimp, beginning with the loyalty oath opening question from Baier: “Is there anyone onstage—and can I see hands—who is unwilling tonight to pledge your support to the eventual nominee of the Republican Party and pledge not to run an independent campaign against that person?”

Trump, after a due five-second consideration raised his hand. He was the only who did. Not only that but he refused to say that he would not engage in a third-party run, for which he was booed.

Things got worse when it was Kelly’s turn.  “You’ve called women you don’t like fat, pigs, dogs, slobs and disgusting animals,” she said. “Only Rosie O’Donnell,” Trump said.  As the question continued, he complained that he was not a political correct sort of guy and that it was all in fun.  But the question certainly stung. Witness to all the complaining tweets that emanated from Trump and his camp about Kelly afterward.  Kelly’s style is energetically wide-eyed, insistent, friendly and sharp—and straight for the jugular. The effect on her target often seems like someone being mauled in a dark alley by a very smart cheerleader.

When it came to Trump, the moderators often seemed like picadors jabbing at a bull.  Trump notoriously doesn’t take to attacks well. “You don’t like me,” he said of the audience. 

It wasn’t entirely clear whom the audience liked. There were lots of moments when that descended into reality-show politics, a zinger here, an impassioned plea there, and an almost unanimous response by all of the candidates that the United States should arm itself to the teeth, increase defense spending, enlarge the army, scrap the Iran nuclear deal, arm the Ukrainians and so on. That kind of spending clearly would bust the bank again as has the Iraq War.

The most funded candidate in the field, Jeb Bush, the former governor of Florida whose father and brother have served as president of the United States, fared reasonably well, including once and for all agreeing that with current available information, his brother’s Iraq War was “a mistake.” 

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie once again showed himself to be something of a bully, when he and Kentucky Senator Rand Paul got into it on National Security spying on citizens and the Patriot Act. He probably scored points, but the visuals were something else—a vehement Rand, thin and frazzled and looking like an academic nerd being overpowered by Christie, who pushed on relentlessly like a high school football tackle.

Commentators seemed to like Florida Senator Marco Rubio, the up-from-nothing young politician mired in the middle of the pack so far.  He was pointed, passionate and just a shade too slick and rehearsed with his zingers and comments, all of which sounded like sound bites for the campaign trail.  

Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas put in his claim on being the true-blue, serious conservative among the candidates, although you’d think shutting down the government would be enough to burnish those credentials.  Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker mentioned his triumphs over teacher’s unions in his state every chance he got, but he adopted a less strident tone than in the past, foregoing his previous claims that his battles with the teachers unions were credentials for waging war against ISIS.

African American neurosurgeon Ben Carson said, when you’re working as a surgeon, “You don’t look at a person’s skin color.”  Ohio Gov. John Kasich showed off his credentials, an optimistic personality and a passion for inclusion, rare among the crew on the stage, going so far as to say that the party “should include and bring in those that are in the shadows.” 

In the end, this was still a Republican event, as it should be, and perhaps, so that both candidates and moderators behaved in ways that shouldn’t come as a surprise.

Was Trump triumphant or blooded, even mortally wounded?  Probably neither.  He was in the end, entirely himself.   He remains a candidate who has neither filter or shame, which bodes trouble for the GOP and for himself.   On this performance, it could strike some observers that Trump did not implode, but that at some time, that’s exactly what will happen. The more interesting question is what he will do when that happens. 

As for the rest,  Rubio will probably go up a notch or two, and Kasich gained valuable visibility and performed well, as, apparently did Fiorina. Will the field be trimmed?  Probably although it is a long way to Tipperary before some of the candidates (17 and still counting) will realize that that voice they heard urging them to run was actually a cold caller.

Was  this—as the promos shouted—”the moment of truth”?  Truth at a political debate?  What could we be thinking?

It was more like a peek at the field, without any real revelation or revealing moments.  As a reality show, it was certainly better than “Big Brother”—or, dare we say it, “The Apprentice,” but not as good as “Dancing with the Stars” or “Shark Tank.” 

Gary Tischler •

What in the world is going on out there?

We’re still months away from the primaries in Iowa and New Hampshire, the true harbingers of the 2016 presidential election campaign, but already the American electoral process is showing signs of:

Collapse and an essential, restless weirdness that can only be found in politics and maybe a 1960s rock festival.

Can you imagine, for instance an eventual final campaign lineup that pits Republican dark prince Ted Cruz against a severely politically wounded, vulnerable Hilary Clinton (or even Joe Biden), with the clown crown prince Donald Trump running an independent campaign, and Bernie Sanders from Vermont running another as a socialist?

Not likely, you say. Maybe not even legal.   But then again, maybe not.   In fact, after what’s happened so far, anything could happen. The two-party system which the American people have come to love and loathe, all at the same time, is suffering a major migraine.  Don McLean should do a reboot of “American Pie,” and make it a song about politics.  Most of the lyrics would still fit.

Consider to begin with what’s happened to the Republicans, that Grand Old Party which sprung out of the Whig party, spearheaded by the Pathfinder John Fremont and led to victory by Abraham Lincoln.  They began the campaign with a roster that was big enough to be an amateur football team—17 all told, which caused something you’ve never seen in the history of American politics.  The GOP held a debate on GOP-friendly Fox and fielded  a varsity and a junior varsity, although it was difficult to tell which was which. One had Trump, and the other didn’t.  One “debate” included a woman, and the other didn’t.  One had a black candidate; the other didn’t.  Both of them wanted to repeal Obamacare.

If any other candidate had dissed John McCain for being captured, questioned his heroic qualities,  talked about Mexican rapists on the border, boasted constantly about how rich he was (“really rich,” it turns out),  and insulted one woman reporter and women in general he or she would long ago have dropped out of the race in sheer embarrassment  and shame.  But Donald Trump is incapable of showing embarrassment, and for sure he has less than zero shame.

The unwieldy formats and large number of would-be-presidents have made it  impossible for anyone else to be heard above the din.  Carly Fiorina stood out among the B team, not a difficult thing to do since it included a lineup made up almost entirely of former something-or-others.

On the other side, Hillary Clinton is  now officially in hot water over her emails, because Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) wants to hold a hearing.  Tell Issa that it’s raining in Japan, and he’ll want to hold a hearing on  it. Clinton, once the dead-certain front-runner—an experience which she’s had experience with—is now seen negatively by a majority of voters, as is Trump.  Bernie Sanders is getting big crowds, and people are buzzing about a possible Joe Biden run.

Is this crazy or what?

A few things are certain.  People are so unhappy about the status quo: nothing get done, and politicians—many of whom are lawyers—are more distrusted than lawyers.   Many people—the economically distressed members of the white, struggling class—are so angry that they’ll swallow Trump’s attempt to present himself as a populist, a man of the people who earned his wealth the “hard” way—he inherited it.

As has been suggested by media and politicians alike, people are really ticked off.  They’re not listening to anybody. They want change. They want a wall, walling off Mexico. They wanted ISIS conquered. They want good jobs which they see going overseas. They want . . .

. . . Change, even if it means changing the whole electoral system and letting chaos reign in the 2016 elections.  It wouldn’t be the first time that the outsider spirit from a dispirited electorate has had a huge impact on elections.  Look at Ross Perot’s two independent runs back in the 1990s which guaranteed two Clinton (Bill) victories. Look at Theodore Roosevelt and his Bull Moose party, derailing Taft’s re-election campaign.  Look at the 1860 campaign, derailed by two Democratic candidates, one of whom was from an about-to-secede South, that guaranteed Lincoln’s election.

So, it’s bye-bye, Miss American party, good old boys drinking whiskey and wry. Don’t bother driving your Chevy to the levee, because American parties have run dry of ideas and political appeal.   

Gary Tischler •

When I left the office of the Georgetowner Newspaper on Tuesday, deadline day, Aug. 18, after writing an editorial on the rising homicide rate in the District of Columbia, the number of homicides for the year in the city stood at 93, an alarming 30 percent or so increase over last year at this time.

By the time I got home two hours later, the number had gone up to 95.

Today, at this writing, around 3 p.m., the count stands at 98. The latest victim was a man who had been found dead Wednesday, Aug. 19, behind a building by a woman walking her dog in the 3000 block of Stanton Road SE just before 8 a.m., according the D.C. Police Union daily crime updates.

No homicides at this point in time have been reported since.  But the beat surely goes on as relentless as a summer heat wave.

After several community and news briefings, Mayor Muriel Bowser and Metropolitan Police Department Chief Cathy Lanier have had to recalibrate their response to the almost daily carnages and barrage of killings, as well as robberies and other crimes.

In a community meeting in the homicide-plagued Shaw neighborhood, which has also experienced a population shift over the last few years, Lanier insisted that the District’s and the police department’s response has largely and in the long run been working. The chief blamed the most recent shootings and killings on an influx of guns (along with offenders released recently).  Lanier and Bowser have announced an increase in the bounty for reported illegal firearms.  A tip leading to an illegal weapon is now worth $2,500.

But if you read the union crime reports and news reports, there is also a nascent feud and argument, ongoing but more heated, in recent days between between police union officers and Lanier over policing strategies. The union is criticizing its chief for disbanding drug and vice units. It is one of the causes, the union argues, for the increase in violent crimes. Others — such as Ward 2 Councilmember Jack Evans in his Georgetowner column and elsewhere — have called for a hike in the number of police in the force.

The pace of the homicides have been astonishing. In the waning days of summer, the D.C. is nearing, and may actually eclipse, last year’s total number of homicides, which was 105.

On Tuesday, there were three killings in the course of the afternoon, a startling figure for a weekday.

No further shootings or homicides had been reported as of 3:15 p.m. on Aug. 20, although there was a report of a robbery at 1100 5th Street NW.  The suspect was described as a black male, seen wearing dark clothing and armed with a gun.

And the beat goes on.

Mark Plotkin • August 17, 2015

Thursday, the whole world will be watching the Great Debate in Cleveland! Cleveland: “the mistake by the lake.”

The Republicans picked Cleveland because their convention will be on the shores of Lake Erie next summer. In addition, no state in presidential elections is more important than Ohio. No Republican has won the White House without winning Ohio. And the Democrats know the Buckeye state’s modern political history.

In 1964, Lyndon Johnson won Ohio, but Hubert Humphrey lost it in ’68. Then, George McGovern lost it in ’72, and Jimmy Carter won it in ’76 (but lost it in ’80). Walter Mondale lost it in ’84, and Michael Dukakis lost it in ’88. However, Bill Clinton won it in ’92 and in ’96. Al Gore lost it in 2000, as did John Kerry in ’04 — and then Barack Obama won it in ’08 and ’12. You get the picture.

Now much has been made about who will make the cut and appear on the stage. It has been determined by the powers that be that only 10 candidates will be allowed this lofty honor. Nobody asked me, but I am using this space to provide some unsolicited advice to the GOP aspirants. Call me the debate coach.

First of all, let’s begin with the guy who is getting all the play. That, of course, would be the massive mogul Donald Trump. My first piece of advice: Trump should do a complete make over. (I don’t mean his hair.) Stun the crowd by being soft spoken, humble, gracious, diplomatic, subtle and light-hearted. This behavior modification will so startle the other debaters that they will be rendered speechless.

Next up, Jeb Bush. He is considered too moderate. So, I encourage him to throw out some off-the-wall right wing bromides that will mix things up. Also, say you are seriously considering legally changing your last name.

Scott Walker is thought to be too dumb to be president. I would tell him: say that you will go to night school and get the necessary credits to receive a college degree. Then, proceed to quote noted philosophers, wise men and women in your learned responses.

Mario Rubio should continually refer to how young he is (43) and alternate his answers in perfect Spanish and English.

Ben Carson ought to remind people in the audience that he is, in fact, a medical doctor. He should keep on sprinkling his quotes with the name of the institution with which he has been associated: “Johns Hopkins.” Rand Paul should remind people that he is not his father — and that he, too, is a doctor.

For Ted Cruz, I say: drop that black suit, and lighten up. Smile a few times. Chris Christie, stop growling. Rick Santorum, do not wear the sleeveless sweater and tell people, again, that you won the Iowa caucus and 11 primaries and that your grandfather was a coal miner from Pennsylvania.

Almost last, but surely not least, Rick Perry: lead off by telling everybody the names of three government agencies you forgot four years ago.

John Kasich, run up on the stage and yell, “I am the governor of this state!”

That should do it. No charge.

Mark Plotkin is a political analyst and contributor to the BBC on American politics, contributor to TheHill.com and columnist for The Georgetowner.
[gallery ids="102271,128273" nav="thumbs"]

Jack Evans •

Many of you have read about the uptick in crime across our city. Mayor Bowser and Chief Lanier held a press conference last week to talk about the increase in our homicide rate — 20 percent over this time last year. Both the mayor and the chief expressed their commitment to doing everything they can to address this rise in violence.

I’ve written about combatting crime many times in this column. During my time on the Council, making our community safer and funding our public safety needs have been among my highest priorities. In the past several months, I have attended multiple community meetings specifically about crime and even more civic association and ANC meetings at which crime has
been discussed.

Residents are rightly concerned. We have worked too hard for too long to combat the terrible crime that once plagued our city.

I speak frequently with Chief Lanier and Mayor Bowser about the violence and crime we are seeing of late. The chief often mentions the serious danger that synthetic drugs represent, both for users and for the gangs distributing the drugs. In June, the Council acted swiftly to increase penalties for selling these substances, and MPD is working diligently to tackle the illegal distribution networks and address the gang turf wars that these drugs are causing.

I mentioned how hard we worked to address the terrible crime we saw in D.C. in the 1980s and ’90s. Those efforts involved all of us: police, vigilant residents, community groups and the District government. But I believe the Council needs to do more to aid our police.

At one time, MPD had more than 5,000 officers. When I first joined the Council in 1991, we had 4,500 officers. I have seen a decline in officers year after year.

Currently, the District has approximately 3,800 sworn police officers. However, due to retirements and officers leaving MPD — for jurisdictions in our neighboring suburban districts or for other careers — our officer corps is diminishing in numbers. I introduced a bill in April 2011 and again in January 2013 that would require the District to maintain a minimum staffing level of 4,000 sworn officers at all times. This was not meant as a statement that 4,000 is a magic number that will eliminate all our public safety concerns. Rather, it would force the mayor and the Council to fully fund 4,000 officers and not play around with the budget.

When the Council goes back into session in September, I plan to reintroduce that bill and to work with MPD, the mayor and the Council to see what other actions we can take to ensure that our officers have what they need to keep the District safe.

My goal is to raise awareness of the critical officer shortage facing the District and motivate the mayor and my colleagues to fund the Department adequately. I’ll continue to work closely with Chief Lanier, Mayor Bowser and community groups to make sure we are right-sizing our public safety resources and keeping our city the vibrant place to live and work that we have labored so hard to achieve.