One Georgetown Student’s View of His Neighbors
• May 30, 2012

I will remember my graduation day as one of the happiest of my life. Receiving my diploma onstage in front of classmates, family and faculty was one of my proudest moments ever. Saturday, May 19, was a beautiful day that will not be topped anytime soon. There was, though, one group absent from Healy Lawn that played an important role during my four years on the Hilltop. Besides faculty and fellow students, my neighbors in Georgetown had a big part in molding my undergraduate experience, for better or for worse.

One thing guides do not tell aspiring students during Georgetown University’s campus tour is that most neighbors are not fans of the university or its students. During my first few weeks as a freshman, I would be disheartened as a party was stopped by the university’s Department of Public Safety or the Metropolitan Police Department. By my senior year, it felt like almost any gathering inevitably ended in flashlights and firm words from a staffer of the Student Neighborhood Assistance Program, better known as S.N.A.P. Students cannot even be sure if they’re not on camera, thanks to Stephen R. Brown’s DrunkenGeorgetownStudents.com, Burleith’s version of TMZ.

Besides dipping their fingers in students’ private activities, neighbors have also effected the university’s relationship with its own students. Georgetown’s 10-year campus plan has been a point of contention since my sophomore year. I have sat in on numerous advisory neighborhood commission meetings and one D.C. Zoning Commission hearing to listen to horror stories about my classmates from exasperated neighbors.

This firm resistance to the university’s growth has affected student life as administrators scramble to appeal to the neighbors, while protecting their own interests. This was clearest in the university’s scaling back of this year’s Georgetown Day celebration on April 27, three days before what could have been the Zoning Commission’s final hearing on the 2010-2020 Campus Plan. Held at the end of the spring semester, Georgetown Day was legendary and fun, even if in the words of Georgetown’s associate vice president for student affairs, Jeanne Lord — for being a “celebration by the campus community,” rather than a “celebration of the campus community.” Inflatables and a beer garden were cut from the day’s programs, and this year’s celebration was a shadow of what it used to be.
There has been a lot of squabbling over four years, but I will say that my personal interactions with my Georgetown neighbors have been nothing but gracious and courteous. Whether in Volta Park or at an ANC meeting, Georgetown residents were always interested in who I was and what I was doing as a student at the nearby university. Georgetown is a beautiful neighborhood, and I am grateful to have been able to share it with neighbors who care deeply about it.

It is a shame that students and Georgetown residents can rarely reach common ground. Georgetown is a lot of things, and — whether the neighbors like it not — it is also a college town. Although many residents fear that unbridled growth by the university will lower the quality of life in the surrounding area, they could work more directly with students to ensure that it is maintained.

Nico Dodd, who earned a bachelor of arts degree in English from Georgetown College, was an editorial intern at the Georgetowner in the summer of 2011.

Mr. Mayor, It’s Time to Talk to Us
•

Talk to almost anybody about recent revelations, charges and events surrounding Mayor Vincent Gray’s election campaign, especially folks who supported him, and the result is not so much shock as a deep sense of frustration and disappointment.

Two operatives in the campaign—long time ally and friend Thomas W. Gore, who was the assistant treasurer for the Gray’s victorious 2010 campaign, and mystery man and campaign operative Howard Brooks, in guilty pleas to federal prosecutors, admitted that money had been given to fringe candidate Sulaimon Brown to keep his anti-Adrian Fenty campaign alive.

Gore had major roles in Gray’s successful campaigns for a Ward 7 Council seat and for the city council chairmanship. Brooks had been specifically hired for the 2010 campaign. Gore admitted that he and unnamed (so far) others had come up with a plan to pay Brown hundreds of dollars to keep him in the race, where his appearances were noted for their vitriolic attacks on Fenty. Brown had also said that he had been promised a job in the Gray administration. After the election, he did get a job but was fired shortly thereafter.

Other accusations have emerged since, including the possibility of a shadow of a “shadow campaign,” involving developer and Gray supporter Jeffrey Thompson. Gore admitted to shredding the contents of a notebook detailing the payments to Brown, and Brooks admitted lying to the FBI.

The two convictions were the proverbial shoes to drop in the long-standing investigatory cloud hanging over the Gray Administration, a cloud that seemed to wound his mayoralty seriously, almost from the get-go. Most observers believe that this is not the end but perhaps only the beginning of more charges which could lead to the mayor himself.

From the beginning of March (when Brown’s story first emerged), and all the subsequent hearings, investigations and revelations, the mayor has remained steadfastly silent, refusing to talk to the press or the public, other than to maintain his innocence of any wrong-doing and his disbelief that anyone in his campaign would do such things.

Yet at least two of his campaign workers did do such things and more. There is something stark and unequivocal about the admissions of Gore and Brooks—there is no getting around them. They are not rumors, speculations, wild charges, political rants or media exaggerations. They are what they are: facts. Gore did order payments, and Brooks did give money to Brown, in the form of cash and money orders. Gore did shred records. Brooks did lie to the FBI.

There is a real cover-up here. There is a real plan which can easily be construed as a conspiracy. And the political process — the 2010 mayoral election campaign — was tainted by the mayor’s campaign staff if not the mayor himself. That is a legally and morally serious matter.

Gray has even stopped giving his usual denials. He has simply refused to talk about the whole mess on the advice of his attorney, he says.

But he should, and, really, he must. His silence is becoming deafening.

Because silence festers, it keeps the public from imaging the best outcomes. It, inevitably, as one Washington Post columnist bluntly stated, leads you to the conclusion that the mayor was either a fool or a liar.

If the mayor was a part of this—if he sat in on and gave approval to a plan to pay Brown—then, he lied since about the time of the first payment to Brown. He protested too much when he expressed disapproval of Brown’s more loose-cannon invectives against Fenty on the campaign trail
The entire reign of Gray as mayor, during which, oddly enough, the city appears to have actually prospered and remain on a steady course, has been conducted in an atmosphere that is surreal. The mayor remained under an ever-darkening cloud, and the public’s trust in him as well as the District Council—which was also plagued by major ethical issues on the part of some of its members—was as low as it can possibly get.

But the strangest thing of all to some was Gray’s silence. Most politicians, faced with an ongoing political scandal, try to get out in front of it, not simply by making brusque denials, but by grabbing the story by the neck and killing it. Instead, Gray has simply ignored it.

This seems to be a politically and ethically suicidal approach. It does a grave disservice to the city, and to the voters who elected Gray, to all voters, many of whom had been impressed by his conduct as council chairman, by his approachability, by his candor, his then unsullied claims of honesty as a politician. He has now an obligation to explain himself, to tell the story, whether his lawyer says otherwise or not.

It doesn’t really matter that there (as far as we know) were small amounts of money involved, or that the whole plan did not affect the outcome. What matters is that the fringe candidate who was dismissed by many appears to have been telling the truth, at least in terms of the information that was verified recently. What matters is that the process itself was sullied.

Speculation has already started about potential mayoral candidates for 2014. That’s political noodling. With each passing day, and no word from the mayor, district residents might not want to wait that long.

So far, the mayor hasn’t told us anything.

He has to start now.

He owes it to everyone.

White House Correspondents’ Dinner: Like Flies to Honey
• May 17, 2012

In a little-known Aesop’s fable, a number of flies are attracted to a jar of honey that is overturned in a housekeeper’s room. Placing their feet in the spilled honey, they eat greedily, happily gorging themselves. Their feet, however, become so smeared with the honey that they cannot use their wings, nor release themselves … and they slowly suffocate.

It was this fable that came to mind as I watched the garish coverage of the White House Correspondents’ dinner a few weeks ago pop up on entertainment shows, newspapers, blogs and social media sites. As an annual event, Hollywood celebrities flood to the nation’s capital for a three-day period of pre-dinner receptions and post-dinner parties at mansions in Georgetown, hotels or museums downtown and embassies around Massachusetts Avenue that are often more lavish than the dinner itself. Journalists, politicos and celebrities flock to each party and each reception … like flies to honey.

As star-struck reporters trip over themselves to gain often lop-sided, fuzzy iPhone photos with Kim Kardashian, George Clooney, Reese Witherspoon and Uggie the Dog to post on their Facebook pages, all journalistic pretense is gone for those three days or more, surrounding the last Saturday in April.
It’s become known, euphemistically, as the “Nerd Prom.” Begun in 1920, the ostensible purpose of the dinner is to “acknowledge award-winners, present scholarships and give the press and president an evening of friendly appreciation.” To outside observers (we, the uninvited masses), however, the White House Correspondents Association dinner is anything but. Instead, the event has become the most obvious symbol of a mainstream media that has abdicated its responsibility to the people, for a chance to preen and rub elbows with Hollywood and political elites.

The criticisms of the dinner as spectacle of sorts are not new. After the 2007 dinner, then-New York Times columnist Frank Rich characterized the event as “a crystallization of the press’s failures in the post-9/11 era…[because it] illustrates how easily a propaganda-driven White House can enlist the Washington news media in its shows.” A few Sundays ago, Tom Brokaw appeared on NBC’s “Meet the Press” and remarked, “Look, I think George Clooney is a great guy, I’d like to meet Charlize Theron, but I don’t think the big press event in Washington should be that kind of glittering event, where the whole talk is Cristal champagne … who had the best party, who got to meet the most people.” Brokaw went on to say, “That’s another separation between what we’re supposed to be doing and what the people expect us to be doing, and I think that the Washington press corps has to look at that … It’s gone beyond what it used to be.”

After the festivities, we’re expected to believe that the press and White House will go back to their business-as-usual adversarial relationship, like Ralph E. Wolfs and Sam Sheepdogs, punching their time clock in the famous Looney Tunes cartoon.

Don’t get me wrong: the same issue exists with the White House’s official state dinners, where Tom Hanks, Barbra Streisand and Steven Spielberg are provided open access to the White House’s compound along with media figures like Katie Couric, PBS’s Charlie Rose, Washington Post’s Jonathan Capehart. As the nation’s gentry gather, many members of the press have proven more than willing to assimilate themselves into exclusive affairs without regard to perceptions from the outside world.
During his tenure, WHCA President Steve Scully countered the critics by saying, “An evening of civility does not mean we are selling out … [and] if people want to criticize the dinner, then don’t come.” Scully, of course, had little to be concerned about. The rest of us—the uninvited “everyman”—never do.

So, Aesop’s story about the flies and the honey jar represents a cautionary tale for the press and for all of us. The fable itself concludes, as the flies are expiring from their foolish escapade, with their collective lament: “O, foolish creatures that we are, for the sake of a little pleasure we have destroyed ourselves.”

President’s Gay Decision Waits for the Rest of America
•

President Barack Obama finally did it.

He maxed out on his evolution on the issue of gay marriage. He’s for it, without equivocation.

This came right as the president revved up his startup activities for his re-election campaign. The announcement–” I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married”–didn’t leave a whole lot of wriggle room.

Whatever the reason for the announcement and decision–Joe “Loose Lips” Biden’s rather casual statement of support for gay marriage on “Meet the Press,” no less, or supporter dissatisfaction with Obama’s slow evolution– it was a historic move, and one bound to affect the presidential campaign.

Presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney was quick to respond that he believed that marriage was defined as being between “one man and one woman,” and that’s probably not his last word on the subject, one way or another, or another.

Gay and lesbian rights activists–who cheered the president’s long anticipated and hoped-for announcement– hope that these are not the Obama’s last words on the subject and that words will lead to some sort of action.

What that might be is unclear. Will he provide actual leadership–moral, rhetorical, executive or whatever–on the issue? Obama has said that he prefers the process winds itself out on the state level, where the issue presents itself in confusing fashion. North Carolina, only days before, held
a vote in which voters banned not only gay marriage but civil unions as well. More than 30 states have passed laws banning gay marriage, while only a handful passed laws allowing gay marriage. On the other, national polls indicate that Americans are divided on the issue, on a 50-50 level.

The opposition to gay marriage tends to be conservative, evangelical, religious and skews older, while support for gay marriage skews younger.

It’s not difficult to understand why many otherwise reasonable people might not support gay marriage on theological grounds. The president’s support–the first by an American president ever–is important for its historical nature, but it does not clarify the conflict. Gay and lesbian rights represents a kind of last frontier on the issue of the role and identity of the other in American society, a last line in
the sand on opponents.

The president’s decision, arrived at perhaps sooner than he would have liked in terms of the election campaign, appears to have been based on experience and perception, with the opinion of his children weighing strongly in the decision. I suspect that’s the kind of thinking that also weighs strongly
in the opinions of most reasonable Americans. A majority of Americans, I suspect, do not oppose civil or partnership rights–inheritance, property, wills and other legal matters–but balk when it comes to marriage, and issues of family and children. I suspect that, beyond issues of religious beliefs, that
opposition is not entirely rational, that it’s grounded in fear of the other and a kind of primitive reaction when it comes to sexual matters.

The idea that family–a mother, a father, children–are the ideal and traditional social, cultural and moral norm in the United State is a belief that is clung to almost fanatically and is belied strongly by the statistical facts of an over 50-percent divorce rate, a high number of children raised by
single parents, and so on. I suspect, too, that the idea of gay people marrying and creating family units is a process that brings gays into the American mainstream as opposed to leaving them exiled on the fringes of societal norms. It’s an idea difficult to accept for large parts of American society which may have never encountered a gay person except on television or in movies.

I suspect until most Americans can expand the idea of what an American family may and can look like and accept it, the issue of gay marriage will remain volatile, intense and divisive.

One thing you can tell politically from President Obama’s tortured evolution to a decision point and to
the muted GOP reply–Romney called the issue “a very tender and sensitive topic”– is that the issue is like the fellow or the gal without a date at the prom. Everyone is reluctant to dance with them, but sooner or later, they’re going to be playing their song. President Obama, in his announcement,
appears to have heard the music.

The Tax Burdens on Small Businesses
•

I am Joe the Plumber. It hit me, as I finished my tax return last week and wrote a check to Uncle Sam.
Joe (really Sam Wurzelbacher ) was the guy candidate Obama patted on the shoulder and suggested that taxes should be increased on the rich. Joe surprised Obama, said he owned his own business and would pay more taxes under the Obama plan.

Mine is the proverbial small business, one of those companies known as a partnership, sub-S corporation, or LLC which combines the business income with the owner’s income on the same tax return.

When my company income is added to my salary, I look rich, even by my own standards. Not rich like Warren Buffett or Mitt Romney. To them, my income isn’t pocket change. But to me, the income on my tax return shocks me.

The problem is that small businesses don’t get to keep or spend the income on their tax returns. Most of it stays in the company to buy new buildings (we built a new one last year), to buy more inventory (did that, too) and to support growth (that, too).

Small businesses are mythically – fired employees start most new small businesses – the job creators. For 30 years, Republicans have had a singular tax mantra: lower taxes create jobs. Our company has grown from one to almost 30 employees. Yet we’ve never thought: “We need to hire a new employee, but our federal income tax is too high. So, we can’t afford it.”

Like many small businesses, my company’s profit doesn’t feel like a profit. Last year, our inventory went up by more than our profit. We had to spend our entire profit, plus more, to replace goods on the shelf for tomorrow’s customers. As a drug store, most of our customers have insurance so that they take their drugs today and we get paid next month.

When the ink dried on my tax return last week, we reported a nice profit. Which landed on my tax return. But, because of our growth, we had no cash. So, I had to borrow money to pay my income taxes. In fact, combining my company’s profits and my salary put me in the Democrat’s “rich” tax bracket. My tax rate is higher than Warren Buffet’s secretary, and more than double Buffet’s and Mitt Romney’s tax rate.

For decades, Republicans have argued that lower tax rates encourage job creators (like me) to hire more employees, and that really low, or zero, capital gain taxes encourage the rich to invest more, thus creating even more jobs. President Bush did that, but no jobs were created during his eight-year presidency. Oh, well. Maybe it will work this time.

President Reagan is looking pretty good to me right now. He installed a 28-percent maximum tax rate on all income, regardless of source, by lowering normal rates from 50 percent and increasing capital gain rates from 15 percent.

Operating businesses that generate jobs, like mine, don’t have capital gains. They pay the full freight. Almost half the income in the economy is from finance, earned by investors who pay lower tax rates. The idea is lower rates reward the risk they take. Of course, investors like the Buffets and Romneys can sell their stock and get out any time.

My house is the collateral for my company’s loans. That’s real risk and normal for small businesses. We have to hang in there or lose our homes. Would one candidate explain how small businesses have less risk and pay twice the tax rate as super rich investors?

Both parties agree that the tax system needs to be reformed and made more “fair” by “broadening the base” and lowering tax rates. That means paying a lower rate on more income. Over the past 50 years, history has shown that when rates are lowered and the amount taxed is increased, normal people pay almost same amount while the rich pay less.

Apparently, my problem is that I’m not rich enough to pay less. Maybe President Obama will drop by my store, rest his hand on my shoulder, as he did to Joe the Plumber, and assure me that I should pay less tax. Maybe Mitt Romney will invest in my company and help it grow into a company with 90,000 employees as he did for Staples. Then, I’d be really rich, he’d be richer, and both of us would pay lower tax rates.

And what about the real Joe the Plumber? He’s running for Congress.

No Extending Liquor-serving hours, but yes to Sunday Store Sales
• May 4, 2012

There’s an old operetta song that basically encourages and celebrates the joy of drinking.

It’s called “Drink, Drink, Drink.”
Maybe on Sunday. But to all hours of the morning? Really?

Mayor Vincent Gray, always in search of surplus revenue, has proposed extending operating hours for bars and restaurants from two to three a.m. in the morning on weeknights, and from three to four a.m. on Friday and Saturday, easily the busiest drink, drink, drink nights of the week.

There is also a proposal that liquor stores in the District of Columbia be allowed to operate on Sundays, as they are currently in Virginia and Maryland.

To the first, we say: seriously?

To the second, we say, okay, why not, what’s good for Maryland and Virginia shouldn’t be that bad for the District of Columbia.

But more opportunities to be further inebriated into the early morning hours–is that a good idea? For Georgetown–where the restaurant and bar activity is high profile, as well as for such areas as downtown DC, Logan Circle on P Street, 14th and U, Adams Morgan and Dupont Circle, that just doesn’t seem like a good idea.

All of these neighborhoods feature a bar and restaurant scene that doesn’t always align smoothly with its residential areas. Muggings and thefts, especially at closing time, are often a feature and consequence of that scene, when customers make their way to their cars, or in the case of Georgetown University students, to their dormitories or apartments.

It hardly makes sense to us because extending hours also extends opportunities for mischief and crime and further disturbs the peace of the residential areas. The potential human costs of such an extension, it seems to us, offsets whatever increase in the coffers of restaurants and the District’s tax revenues.

Preparing for a Financial Pearl Harbor
• May 3, 2012

“The present situation is as dangerous as if the United States decided to outsource the design of bridges, electrical grids and other physical infrastructure to the Soviet Union during the Cold War.” ? —The Intelligence and National Security Alliance

Cyber-attacks on large banks have never been anything new, but the FBI special agent noticed that the attacks this time are different—large banks in Charlotte, New York and Chicago have reported some kind of virus that has taken control of their computer systems. By midnight, cyber-forensic teams have identified the culprit as a stand-alone malware program– a computer worm.

In the morning, an FBI spokesperson announces “highly sophisticated,” coordinated and targeted attack against banks in Charlotte, New York and Chicago. The attack is well-timed to occur during the holiday season when banking operation centers and response teams were thinly staffed. The machines bombard government and Wall Street websites with incessant network traffic, crashing or partially disabling them.

Media reports that the attack has destroyed hundreds of thousands of computers, and initiates a panic from account holders that has caused the Federal government to impose a sudden semi-freeze on all accounts, with a $500/day individual account withdrawal limit until further notice.

Despite thousands of man-hours, mitigation efforts are only partially successful. U.S. law enforcement and commercial researchers attempt to determine the origin of the attack and find that the worm received its commands from servers in 26 countries. Researchers have seen this kind of sophistication before in attacks on the defense industry, but never in the commercial sector. Investigators still aren’t certain who launched the assault, although many suspect North Korea.

Although this is a fictional scenario, recent testimony on Capitol Hill from a host of cyber-defense experts and national security officials has made it clear that such an event is not only possible — it may very well be inevitable.

It is widely recognized that a strong and well-protected U.S. banking information infrastructure is critical to maintaining our nation’s economic security. But are we prepared for a deliberate and concerted cyber-attack on our financial system?

The cyber domain provides unprecedented opportunities for catastrophic attacks against the banking and finance sectors. Because of the banking community’s heavy reliance on networked information systems, both of these sectors are extremely vulnerable.

The secure networks that banks use every day are the target of persistent hostile activities. To an adept hacker, they are anything but secure. The intrusions are being conducted by a host of adversaries with a wide range of capabilities and objectives. Whether state-sponsored or otherwise, these attacks threaten the integrity and safety of the nation’s financial infrastructure.

To effectively defend itself, the banking industry requires a systemic method not only to defeat these threats, but to also exploit them. Such a method has proven elusive, however. Instead, our financial institutions gravitate toward standard technical cyber security tools that provide a passive defense — but not an active one.

Standard cyber security measures, while always prudent, are largely irrelevant to the most significant threats facing the financial sector today. The prevailing approach of searching for vulnerabilities and applying updated security patches is much like plugging leaks in a badly constructed dam … with a large city situated squarely downstream.

A better approach incorporates some timeless counterintelligence methods that the CIA has long-used to ferret out spies at home and abroad. Using cyber-forensics, these techniques can neutralize cyber-attackers, isolate, manipulate and interdict them.

Behind every virus, mole, worm and cyber intrusion, there are faces — faces of real people who wish to inflict damage on carefully selected targets. But do we know who these people are and what motivates them?

Whether the objective of an attack is theft, money laundering, extortion or indirect warfare, fast-moving attacks are best handled by cyber-forensics, international law enforcement and counterintelligence experts who are empowered to move quickly and seamlessly through the interagency and commercial arena.

Any effort to understand who these actors are, will also ask who they are allied with, the nature of their activities, the purpose behind them, and what can be done to protect against them. A counterintelligence approach, properly applied and adapted can both produce information on cyber-attackers and protect networks in a proactive, targeted way while protecting our national financial networks.

Today, invisible battle lines are being drawn between banks and cyber-attackers. While traditional cyber-security measures against hackers have become commonplace, very little has been done to address the threat of systemic attacks to the banking industry conducted by state-sponsored and transnational actors. Until a comprehensive approach is adopted, scenarios like the one above will be more possible than anyone in the banking industry would like us to believe.

Bartleby’s Books: An Institution Gone Too Soon
•

Given the tumult of activity up and down M Street, it’s always nice to take a detour down one of Georgetown’s side streets and duck into a quaint shop for a brief respite. For many Georgetowners, Bartleby’s Books, with its picturesque rows of antiquarian literature, has been the spot. Home to collectible prints, maps, and the occasional first edition copy of Margaret Mitchell’s “Gone with the Wind” (valued at $850), Bartleby’s is a rich, substantive haven for the literary community and history buffs alike. Regrettably, when the store’s lease runs out at the end of July 2011, it will cease to be a part of the community.

Bartleby’s has been in business for 27 years and weathered the last 17 in Georgetown. Four years ago, it made room for Juicy Couture at M St. and Thomas Jefferson St., relocating to its current address on 29th by the Four Seasons. Now the landmark must move again, this time to accommodate a restaurant owned by Eric Eden and Marlene Hu Aldaba, co-owners of Hu’s Wear. Worse news still — the transition is to the Internet.

Bartleby’s owners John Thomson and Karen Griffin watched their business change dramatically with the dawn of the Internet. According to Thomson, those looking for particular books now scour sites like Amazon and eBay while “used book stores are more for browsing.” For this reason, the two are not looking to relocate, instead opting to run the store online from home. It’s no secret that the Internet has been detrimental to the used books profession.

The conditions of antique books are meticulously evaluated at Bartleby’s, but online there is no way to gauge the accuracy of an appraisal. “Many people on eBay can’t tell an original document from a photocopy,” chided Thomson.

Additionally, the owners of online used book sites often lack expertise in the subject areas of the very books they sell. Thomson and Griffin specialize in the history of U.S. presidents and the D.C. area, particularly Georgetown. Now their wealth of knowledge on the materials they possess will be reduced to paragraph descriptions on a website.

No longer will Georgetown students be able to sift through the collections of used paperbacks left outside Bartleby’s on a sunny day. The pleasant surprise of coming across an unexpected novel will be forfeit. Then again, the demise of the independent bookstore has been a long time coming in Georgetown.

Thomson believes a combination of factors are responsible for the decline of stores such as Bartleby’s, including an excess of restaurants catering to tourists and the rise of department stores that take up entire buildings. He and Griffin can list off all the antique bookstores in Georgetown that went before them. They recognize themselves as the last of a type. The Lantern will be the sole rare bookstore of note in Georgetown, when they close shop.

Some members of the community have petitioned to preserve the local treasure. “They’ve been very supportive,” said Griffin. Nevertheless, she and Thomson seem at peace with the fact that their landlord has opted for an arrangement that will bring in more money; the Hu’s Wear restaurant obtained one of seven new liquor licenses in Georgetown.

“The greatest loss is for younger people, who might never see what the depth of this material can be,” reflected Thomas. However, the loss extends far past the students and youths around town.

Up and down M St., where restaurants are a dime a dozen, losing Bartleby’s will leave a gaping hole in our tradition and culture. Such a void can’t be filled by another cookie-cutter restaurant with ethnic flair. In the 17 years they have served the Georgetown community, Thomson and Griffin have acted as archivists of Georgetown’s rich history. Nowhere else in the District will you find a similar volume of works chronicling Georgetown’s past. Yet, in the name of higher revenue, Bartleby’s is being exiled to the realm of book fairs and the Internet — its contents pressed further towards obscurity.

Small businesses like Bartleby’s don’t merely add character to Georgetown; they are responsible for creating the charming, personal atmosphere it became known for. Now, one-by-one they are vanishing. In their place appear businesses less concerned with maintaining Georgetown’s intimate essence as they are with drawing in the rabble of visitors to the area.

When we force out two of our own, Georgetown will only be the worse for it.

1960: Looking Back a Half Century
•

Depending on how old you are, 1960 may not seem so long ago, but the world was quite a different place then. As far a the global scene went, France was busy shedding colonies in Africa, the U.S. was making treaties with Japan, and Nikita Kruschev was acting up at the UN, although the “banging his shoe” incident was probably trumped up and passed along because it made such a good story. The U.S.S.R. already had already initiated the space race, and in 1960 launched a satellite with two dogs on board. This distressed the U.S. almost as much as the Russians shooting down Francis Gary Powers, as he flew over Soviet air space in his U-2 spy plane.

College kids were complacent, although an interesting group called the Student Non-violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) was organized by student activists at Shaw University, a black Baptist college in Georgia. American Express issued its first plastic credit card. Marshall McLuhan explained in brilliant theories just how invasive and influential mass media was. There were no cell phones and no PCs; the computers used in offices were huge, unwieldy, and very slow. Oh yes, and everybody smoked cigarettes in restaurants, offices, hotel rooms, and everywhere else. The connection between smoking and lung cancer, while suspected, had not yet been established and publicized.

A new British rock group, who called themselves The Beatles, made their first appearance on stage in Hamburg, Germany. Elvis Presley, who went into the Army to serve his country, was made a Sergeant, and his stint in the military didn’t seem to cut into his singing career. The images on TV were only clear in the major metropolitan areas and grainy to snowy elsewhere, but everybody was hooked on it by 1960. They watched Jack Paar on the Tonight Show, and when Lucille Ball divorced Desi Arnez, it seemed unthinkable to all the fans who loved the zany couple and their antics on “I Love Lucy”. Alfred Hitchcock’s groundbreaking film “Psycho” opened in New York, of which the show scene, fifty years later, is still one of the scariest scenes in movie history.

Washington politics were in for a change. A dashing young senator from Massachusetts, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, decided to run for president, outmatched his opponent Richard Nixon in the first televised presidential debates, and won the presidency in November. He and his pregnant wife Jackie moved from their Georgetown house to the White House and brought the fresh air of youth, idealism, and hope to Washington.
Back then, investigative reporters pretty much considered the President’s private life “off limits”. It took years after John Kennedy was assassinated for his affairs with Marilyn Monroe and a mobster’s girlfriend, among others, to make the news. Even if the public had read it in the newspapers in the 1960’s, they wouldn’t have believed it, which is quite a statement on how the media and our perception of public figures have changed.
In December of 1960, the musical Camelot opened on Broadway and its brilliant cast went on to give 873 performances. If there’s one thing that even jaded Americans who were around in the 1960’s remember wistfully about the Kennedy presidency, it’s probably the reference to Camelot and its “one brief shining moment” in the pages of history.

The Iraqi Cultural Center
•

Outside, it was a typical American-style Friday night in Dupont Circle, restaurants and watering holes busy, couples and groups of people wandering up and down the streets; a mild fall-like weekend
night, outdoor dining, indoor imbibing.

In that scene, the outside of 1630 Connecticut Avenue looked like any other night-time office building, but inside and out of view, at the site of the still new Iraqi Cultural Center upstairs, something different
was going on. Culture—in the form of ancient music inspired by and evocative of something as prosaic as coppersmithing—seemed to have had an accumulatively powerful effect on an audience gathered for the first concert offering of the 2010-2011 Embassy Series.

That particular Friday night, Embassy Series founder and director Jerome Barry had something that vividly illustrated what he’s always said the series are meant to be: staged musical events in embassies, ambassador residences, and cultural centers that double as cultural diplomacy.

Nothing demonstrated the possibilities and opportunities of cultural diplomacy more effectively then the merging of audience, performers, and Iraqi officialdom from the ranks of the embassy more than this Friday concert of music by the Safaafir Iraqi Maqam Ensemble, a young group of musicians of Iraqi and American heritage, who played music from, in effect, the Cradle of Civilization, but with new compositions.

An evening of Iraqi music played by musicians, some of them from the American Midwest searching for the roots of the music of their Iraqi heritage in front of an audience of Americans and Iraqis in Washington, D.C. has an undeniably powerful resonance – historically, politically, and culturally.

In Washington, Iraq lies vividly in the contemporary mind, full with memories of 9/11, the invasion, the fall of Saddam Hussein, thelong, violent American military presence, and the ongoing efforts of the country to recreate a viable nation and government. These things are impossible to put aside for any great length of time, but they can be softened by a keen appreciation of cultural opportunities that builds bridges.

“Iraq is not just a country of explosions,” said Samir Shakir Mahmood Sumaida’ie, the Ambassador of Iraq, speaking with a moving eloquence. “We are not just a country of violence and problems.

“This concert is about a different side of Iraq. We are an ancient people, part of a great civilization
from the Cradle of Civilization. What you will hear is music that goes back thousands of years. You will hear music made on instruments that presaged all string instruments, like the violin and the lute, as well as percussion instruments. You will hear music which came from the market place in old Baghdad, melodies which men and women, poets and vendors swayed to in that ancient city.”

“It’s a historic night for us,” Barry said. “Iraq is the 57th embassy to have participated in the Embassy Series.”

The group—made up of brother and sister Amir El Saffar and Dena El Saffar, Tim Moore, Zafer Tawil, and Carlo DeRosa—takes its name from a well known market in Baghdad, evoking the sound of the ancient art of coppersmithin. The rhythmic noises, din-like, constant, syncopated almost, result in singular works of beauty. The sound of what’s called Maqam—a kind of classical vocal tradition dating back centuries in Iraq—includes the metallic timbre of the instruments used in making the music, which includes percussion instruments and ancient string instruments, like the Santur and the Oud.

The result is something is so evocative that it’s almost otherworldly, but it persists in the market places and the society of Iraq where the music links up with poetry. In Iraq, poetry is serious business—not in the sense of being published, say, in magazines or academic circles, but as being written on a daily basis and recited at dinner among family members. Consider for a moment Ambassador Sumaidaie’s background. He is almost a quintessential techie, with degrees in electrical engineering and a diploma in computer study. He’s also an entrepreneur, a veteran diplomat, and he writes Arabic poetry in the classical form.

The brother and sister team of Amir and Dena El Saffar were pursuing traditional contemporary
musical studies and careers—Amir as a jazz trumpeter in New York, Dina with a degree in classical music. From the Midwest with an American mother and Iraqi father, they began to explore traditional Iraqi music and the result is the Safaafir Iraqi Maqam Ensemble.

With roots in secular poetry and Sufi mysticism, the Maqam as performed by the ensemble evokes more than anything a quality that is particular to Middle Eastern music. There is a stirring yearning, a building ecstasy achieved by repetition. In his vocals, Amir El Saffar builds a kind of musical mountain from sand. The repetition builds the emotion and it can careen from plaintive sadness to ecstatic joy. Some of the textual material—the words—are old stories about unrequited love. “The last one involved a man who meets a girl he instantly falls in love with,” Amir explained. “She’s part of a caravan. He goes to the caravan, but it’s already gone. So he follows, and they come to a monastery, where he’s just missed her. The monks listen to his story and begin to cry themselves, so sad is his plight.”

Lamentation is likely one of the first forms of music—a keening repetition that rends the heart. In its current musical form, it’s a more embracing kind of music. It pleads for participation.

The concert was the first performance event for the Iraqi Cultural Center, which opened in May. The concert proved to be a bridge to an older place, a better time, and the music made it vivid, where before, amid two wars, it had to be imagined.