News & Politics

Gary Tischler •

Every four years, I turn into a mushy little kid when the opening ceremonies of the Summer Olympics are broadcast, be it from Beijing, Sidney, Athens or even Atlanta. Ditto for the Winter Olympics, although those games tend to be a little monochromatic.

And every four years, I get a little ticked that I have to listen to the folks at NBC: to have Matt Lauer go through his little book of fun facts when the parade of nations with its many athletes commences or watch interviews of only American athletes, or get a parade of commercials during the parade of nations, letting little countries without a major arsenal pass by during said ads.

I’m as a patriotic as the next immigrant citizen, but do we really have to watch Ryan Seacrest continue NBC’s Phelps gush-a-ton in lieu of more “Rule, Britannia”? Ryan Seacrest? Seriously?

Speaking of ads, was that a Batman ad I spied, and was that maybe a little soon to ca-ching for that movie? And by the looks of all the Cadillacs and Chevies—at what cost per second we can only imagine—General Motors seems to be doing just fine. I so hope we’ve gotten all that bailout money back.

Still, you gotta love it all, even with the presence of Lauer, the too-soon return of Meredith Viera who apparently has Johnny Rotten in the songbook of her life, and even sad to say, the veteran Bob Costas, a shrewd, often witty and eloquent announcer, who lulled himself into clichés sitting besides the droning Lauer. Costas noted that the International Olympic Committee had chosen not to have a moment of silence in honor of the Israeli athletes slain at the 1972 Munich Olympics but offered no opinion on that choice—perhaps because the IOC gets to select recipients of broadcast rights to the Olympics? He also churlishly quipped, after citing a glowing description of Uganda by Winston Churchill, “He probably didn’t know Idi Amin” or some such tripe. And when in the odd segment in honor of Britain’s national health system and children’s literature, we saw a sweeping view of children and hospital beds, Lauer gasped, “It’s bedlam out there.” Perhaps not.

Opening ceremony director, Academy Award winner Danny Boyle (“Slumdog Millionaire”), hooked into the vibrancy of London and the mashier aspects of British history to put on a show that was at once stupendous fireworks, smokestacks rising out of the green soil of England, a quick and smart appreciation of the United Kingdom’s contribution to rock and pop music and a starring role for Queen Elizabeth II, who just got through celebrating 60 years of her reign, outpomping and outcircumstancing Queen Victoria.

Bet you never thought you would see (even if only in a film clip) the queen herself (as opposed to Helen Mirren or Judy Dench as M) greet James Bond (Daniel Craig) in person, while her corgies rolled on the carpet or watched mournfully as mums lifted off in a helicopter. While the queen rarely smiles, as rudely pointed out by our announcers, she appears to know how to laugh at herself, even parachuting out of a helicopter. Or not. It was a splendidly cheeky.

There was a lot of speculation about who would light the Olympic Cauldron. No soccer superstar: neither Roger Bannister nor Ringo Starr. Turned out to be a bunch of young budding Olympians in training, lighting up the future, which was touching.

Former Beatle Paul McCartney played his heart out on “Hey Jude.” Although if you watched NBC, only our American Olympians, completely preppy in Ralph Lauren, and our British hosts heard it, even if none of them had been born when the Beatles ruled the world. Or as a friend’s daughter once said when she was 11 years old: “Did you know that Paul McCartney used to be in a band?”

Here’s what I would have liked to have seen: shots of all those majesties, rulers, kings, queens, prime ministers, presidents or potentates and potato heads that were watching their country’s athletes march jubilantly by—not just first lady Michelle Obama, the unsmiling queen, the splendid Kate and her sleepy husband, the queen of Spain, the once again prime minister of Russia.

Likewise, I’d like to see more of the athletes competing for other nations, because we do live in a global village these days. The Olympics always represent one of the best opportunities for the athletic citizens of that world to interact and present. If we have athletes with the hearts of lions, the looks of models, the courage of tireless heroes, why surely there must be similar types on other teams: archers we have not seen, rowers from Finland, shot putters from one of the former Soviet Union–stan countries, the marathoners from small villages in new countries, the first women athletes from the Middle East. We never or rarely see that on television where the pool tends to be full of Americans, which has a two-man team of Phelps and Lochte, as opposed to the female Chinese swimmer who set a world record.

“Hey Jude” is a wonderful song. But imagine for a moment if the song had been, well, “Imagine,” and the cameras had scanned all the teams, all the faces and you could hear John Lennon singing, “Imagine there’s no countries . . . and no religion too. Imagine all the people…”

Jack Evans • July 27, 2012

Last week, the Council received an unusual
amount of attention when it considered
how a pending bill regarding taxicab
modernization might impact a new car service
called “Uber.” Anyone who was not familiar
with Uber before the debate likely is by now, and
I personally received about 5,000 emails from
concerned residents who want to make sure they
can continue to enjoy this transportation option.

Though there were strong opposing views on
the underlying taxicab bill, it sought to address
issues of importance to anyone who has ever
ridden in a D.C. taxi and wished for a better
experience. For example, the bill would move us
toward credit/debit card readers in all taxicabs, a
passenger information monitor displaying a trip
map and other content, and a driver information
monitor with an electronic manifest and GPS
navigation. In other words, as in so many areas
of our government, the District is finally moving
toward meeting baseline expectations that even
much smaller jurisdictions have been requiring
for years.

So how does this impact Uber? Uber is
a technology company that connects licensed
sedan drivers with consumers who want a convenient,
high-quality transportation option, through
the use of a smartphone app. Apparently, Uber’s
pricing model, which uses both a time and distance
factor for calculating rates, has been viewed
by the taxicab commission as operating in a legal
gray area despite existing regulations seeming
to permit such a rate. It was my position that
Uber’s status should be clarified in order to make
the service explicitly legal, but I disagreed with
Councilmember Cheh’s approach, which would
have mandated a minimum price for Uber that is
a full 5 times that of a taxi.

Councilmember Cheh presented her goal as being to simply maintain
status quo by memorializing the pricing structure
currently in place, but her draft would have also
subjected many other aspects of the business,
such as advertising and types of vehicles offered,
to taxicab commission regulation. Uber asserted
that any price floor would be counterproductive,
preventing them from being able to provide
lower costs to consumers if possible within their
business model.

I agree. When Councilmember Cheh was confronted
by other Councilmembers about the significance of making
this type of change to the proposed law
without an additional public hearing,
she removed all Uber provisions from the
bill pending further discussion in the fall.

Unfortunately, unless another change was
made to the bill, Councilmember Cheh’s action
would have forced Uber not only to continue to
operate in this gray area, subject to unfair ticketing
by the taxicab commission, but also subjected
them to additional regulation contained
in the larger taxi bill being passed that day.

To fix this situation, I offered an amendment, with
the support of my colleagues Tommy Wells,
David Catania, and Michael Brown, to explicitly
authorize Uber’s operations while providing
reasonable safeguards to protect the public.
Specifically, my amendment requires that: (1)
an estimated fare is available to the user when
the application is used to book a sedan; (2) the
method for calculating the fare structure is provided
by the business to the user of the mobile
application prior to booking a sedan; (3) upon
completion of the trip, the customer is provided
a receipt that lists the pick-up point, drop-off
point, and total fare paid; and (4) the business
providing the mobile application uses sedans that
are licensed.

After extensive debate and minor tweaks, my
amendment was accepted by the full Council,
with the exception of Councilmember Graham.
This part of the law will sunset on December
31, 2012, however, at which time we will have
to either extend the law or move a new consensus
legislative solution for Uber.

Advocates for additional government regulation will say that
all transportation services need to be heavily
regulated, but I would point out that the service
offered by Uber is a far cry from the days when
any D.C. resident or tourist getting a ride
to the airport in a taxi could count on only one
thing – that they would be charged a different
fare than the last time they went, even
from the same location, with no articulated rationale.

Uber provides clear pricing details tied to time and GPS
tracking, as well as a receipt containing a map of
the actual route taken, and its future competitors
undoubtedly will provide that level of information
as well. Inefficient routes are scrutinized by
customer support staff and adjusted if necessary.

Any attempts to overcharge would quickly be
remedied as consumers voted with their feet by
choosing other companies, filing a class action
lawsuit, or simply filing a complaint with their
credit card company. Absent that, it is not much
more difficult to file a suit in small claims court
than to make a taxicab commission complaint,
and by all accounts the outcomes are fairer in
the former venue.

A better arena for regulation is to address
the real need of preventing discrimination by
drivers in passengers picked up or destinations
serviced–unfortunately for those who are
pro-taxi commission, this factor also counsels
against subjecting Uber’s full business to taxi
commission oversight. While I hear anecdotal
evidence of taxi drivers making discriminatory
decisions as to which potential riders to stop and
pick up, Uber cannot be “hailed” but is rather is
pre-arranged at a pickup location. And while taxi
drivers concentrate their services in the central
business district and popular evening entertainment
areas, Uber will service any location within
the District. As Councilmember Alexander said
on the dais, Uber will pick up passengers east of
the Anacostia River routinely, and their final destination
is already confirmed before the pickup is
made. With a taxi dispatch, despite rules to the
contrary, I hear stories of folks waiting for two
hours, never to be picked up. And as to safety, all
of Uber’s drivers are licensed as sedan or limo
drivers in D.C., Virginia, or Maryland, and drive
routes predetermined through an iPhone application
and logged in the company’s GPS tracker
– adding an additional layer of regulation would
be akin to making lawyers pass bar exams, and
then saying their law firms have to somehow
take the exam, too, rather than simply apply for
the appropriate type of business license.

In addition to looking at Uber, it is important
to study the full landscape of transportation
options, including taxis, and I am pleased that
Councilmember Cheh is planning an additional
hearing in the fall. If the argument for a more
regulated Uber is that it otherwise places taxicabs
at a competitive disadvantage, perhaps we
need to explore ways to improve the quality and
thus competitive position of our taxis. I understand
that Uber partners with taxi drivers in
Chicago to accomplish this very purpose, which
might be a positive development here as well.
As with the LivingSocial debate, I would rather
encourage technology companies to have a presence
in the District than create incentives for
them to leave. Please let Councilmember Cheh
and your other elected representatives know of
your support for Uber’s service, and the need to
allow a new business to create jobs and operate
without unnecessary government interference. ?

Robert Devaney •

August 13 will mark the ninth anniversary of the D.C. – C.O.P.S. Classic and will be hosted at Westfields Golf Club in Clifton, Va., to support the D.C. Chapter of Concerns of Police Survivors.

This year’s tournament is dedicated to the memory of Metropolitan Police Department Reserve Sergeant Joseph Pozell. On May 14, 2005, Reserve Sergeant Pozell was struck by a vehicle while directing traffic at the intersection of M Street and Wisconsin Avenue and died from his injuries on May 17, 2005. Pozell had served in the Metropolitan Police Department for three years. He is survived by his wife Ella and son.

D.C. COPS Classic Golf Tournament was started in 2003 by Metropolitan Police Department Detective Joey Crespo. Detective Crespo started this tournament to raise money for the Washington DC Chapter of Concerns of Police Survivors. The tournament has grown from 75 players to last year’s biggest event with 260 golfers. Detective Crespo has been joined by Metropolitan Police Department Officer Greg Alemian in 2006 and Detective Travis Barton in 2008. 100 percent of the proceeds from the D.C. COPS Classic are given to the Washington, D.C., Chapter of Concerns of Police Survivors. For more information, visit www.dccopsclassic.com

Robert Devaney •

The Citizens Advisory Council Second District police appreciation lunch is scheduled for Aug. 9 at the Metropolitan Police Department’s Second District station (3320 Idaho Ave. NW.). For more information or to volunteer, contact Samantha Nolan at 202-244-2620 or nolantutor@yahoo.com.

Georgetowner •

It is now day five of the national, Colorado and personal tragedy to which we—all of us, we pundits the least of them—are responding to the horror that occurred at a movie theatre at a screening of the new Batman movie in Aurora, Colo.

On Friday, in the a.m. minutes of midnight, a lone gunman, armored to the max in protective gear, and armed with two glocks, a shotgun and an assault rifle, commenced on a shooting rampage which ended up with 12 persons dead and 58 wounded.

Because we live in a time when communication is instant, terrifically mobile, digitalized, able to leap from cellphone to iPad to cellphone to computer by tweet and text, we became enveloped a little faster on our screens, large, flat or telephone sized. The tragedy this way becomes more fluid, the static impenetrable, the desire to guess, gauge our feelings, voice our opinions, our anger growing, until it is stifled by the over all sadness.

But here were are, thinking of past events, watching what’s going on now. This, like Columbine and Virginia Tech, before it, is a different event, in magnitude, in speed of information travel, in reaction, in just about anything you can think of.

This was an event that occurred in the middle of a national election campaign and several things happened because of that. Both campaigns immediately curtailed the airing of political commercials, most of which these days are attack ads from both the Romney and Obama campaigns but only in Colorado. The ads played endlessly in the rest of the country, interrupting and trailing the tragedy like a surreal pack of feral and viral dogs. Even the reaction to the tragedy statements by Romney and Obama seemed appropriately solemn and similar.

The fact that the president came to Aurora to comfort the victims on Sunday was not nearly as important as the fact that Brian Williams was there on Friday, along with all the other anchors, reporters, experts and intoners. The experts—shrinks, psychologists, criminologists, profilers—were on hand, trotting briskly out of some generic office to offer their opinions about the suspect, and clarifying nothing much.

The appearance of James Holmes in court on Monday—bewildered, sleepy, apparently, disengaged, likely—did not help matters, and whatever details emerged about his life and childhood in the end matter very little. He is who he is, and he is not the two kids at Columbine, the shooter at Virginia Tech or the officer at Fort Hood.

Warner Brothers, which produced the Batman series and the midnight showings, offered to participate in a fund for victims. Midnight screenings are a lucrative, and deliberate experience created as a kind of communal event in which audience goers get to be first to see and interact, with people dressing up in costumes waiting in hours in line.

Here’s a thought for Warner Brothers: why don’t you give ALL of the midnight screening receipts (reported to be more than $30 million) as a show of empathy, and sympathy for the victims. It would be a smart and right thing to do.

Here’s another suggestion. Can we see a few politicians (including President Obama and Mr. Romney) stand up even if their knees are shaking and take on the National Rifle Association and propose a ban on automatic firearms and better screenings for gun purchases? The NRA is not some universal rod and gun club, it’s a very, powerful lobbying group and it’s about money, not Second Amendment rights.

And speaking of that, all you principled folks who see a conspiracy to take away your hunting rifle, your home and person protection glock or your anti-tank weapon, and who think that the occasional crazy event with multiple victims is the price we pay for liberty, here’s a suggestion.

Go to Aurora, visit the friends, loved ones, relative, father, mother, wife, children of one of the victims, and you make that argument in person. Look them in the face. You tell them that the death of that little girl, or the death of the person they love, or the memories that will never leave them is the price we pay for liberty. You might want to bring a gun. Things could get dicey. ?