Percy Plaza: a Uniting Symbol for Our Time

April 5, 2012

In the divided, Red State-Blue State, conservative-liberal, right- and left-wing United States of America of today, there are very few proposals that elicit a unanimous, united response.

Here’s one: Ward 2 Councilmember Jack Evans has proposed a measure that would ceremonially rename the corner of Wisconsin Avenue and K Street in honor of Senator Charles Percy.

We can only say: Yes and yes again. We applaud, we approve, for many good reasons. Wisconsin Avenue and K Street marks the entrance to the finally, fully blooming and operational Georgetown Waterfront Park.

There is probably no single person who was more instrumental in getting the park project off the ground and on its way — as a chairman of the Friends of Georgetown Waterfront Park and as out-and-out booster and promoter for the park’s completion. The park’s non-profit — named “Georgetowners of the Year” for 2011 by this newspaper — advanced the idea of Percy Plaza a few years ago.

Percy passed away at the age of 91 just days after completion of the park.  

Percy was a Republican senator from Illinois of considerable achievement and reputation, counted at one time as a possible GOP presidential candidate.  He also had an illustrious business career before entering politics.

As a politician, a popular senator, he was the kind of man who honored the trade, a true moderate who worked both sides of the aisle with style and aplomb, the kind of Republican that seems today to be as rare as a unicorn in a deeply divided American body politic.

When Percy left the Senate, he took up life as a Georgetown citizen and lived up to the highest standards of community citizenship by taking part with great fervor in the community’s affairs. The Georgetown Waterfront Park is rich evidence of his good works.

So: Name an intersection after Sen. Charles Percy? That’s the least we can do. See you at Percy Plaza.

Amidst the Obamacare Debate: Inside and Outside the Supreme Court


Inside, in that majestic, bone-white building, men and women in robes and the best lawyers in the United States were in the midst of a historic debate on the merits, demerits and future of President Barack Obama’s historic health care proposal, passed by Congress two years ago.

Outside near the steps, the masses—many of them highly vocal members of the Tea Party—had gathered to conduct their own debates, large and small, a quartet here, two people finger pointing there, some being interviewed by the gathered media come to this place like bees to flowers.

From the written and televised reports of the three-day review and legal discussions—an unprecedented effort for a piece of major legislation being considered by the Supreme Court—Obama’s health care plan was not faring well, especially the controversial mandate which purports that everyone must buy health insurance or be penalized. And so, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan dug in, listened and asked questions and made comments which were studied like runes by the media and opponents and proponents of the health care plan.

Outside were people like Lenny and Dave, who argued vehemently on a first-name basis, and other loud or muted voices weighing in. But by the steps, and certainly at a nearby rally of conservative opponents, which included speeches by Republican Congressman Paul Ryan, who talked about budget cuts, debt and freedom, it was clear that the anti’s outnumbered the bill’s supporters.

Tuesday, and no doubt Wednesday, and for sure Monday, was an ongoing replay of the nation’s great divide over the issue, a divide which had all but given birth to the tea party and resulted in the Democratic Party’s loss of the House of Representatives.

Nothing had changed: Tea Party demonstrators pretty much talked and behaved as you might have expected. They argued with some remnants of the occupiers which were still in Washington, they boiled down the health care bill to its mandate provision and, like the GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum, rolled up into a one-word cause: freedom.

No such simplicities were evidenced at the Supreme Court case where judges at worst tried to critique the mandate as being the same as being forced to buy food that’s good for you. But everyone inside acknowledged that the bill was much too complicated, big and long, to fully be understood in all of its details.

That did not deter the debates outside, where everything squeezed itself into slogans (OMG-Obamacare-Must-Go) or the classic liberal/conservatives divides and a growing sense of utter frustration and unreasonableness. Two men were arguing about the debt, about the bill, about the growth of government. “I don’t care, Dave,” a man holding up a “don’t touch my health care” sign said, gesturing with his hands. “I don’t know what Reagan did, I don’t care if he did, or what the deficit was then, you’re still wrong. Understand that you’re completely wrong.”

You could see another woman arguing with a young black man, re-interpreting the Civil War and its causes by suggesting that slavery had little if anything to do with it. “The North wanted the South’s money, that’s what it was,” she said. “They had a contract, and they chose to leave it.”

If you’re of a conciliatory, negotiating mind and have your own opinions about health care and the mandate, the tea party folks are a tough sell. To them, it’s all about freedo and big government and how it infringes on said freedoms. And if that argument fails by itself, well, you know, they have a direct pipeline to the hearts and minds of the founding fathers and what they intended. Obviously, they have not seen “1776.”

At the rally, the crowd seemed to sense a wavering of support for what has now been embraced by both sides as Obamacare. The green “Don’t Tread On Me” signs and the “Don’t touch my health care” signs stuck out, as did a sign portraying Obama as the last in a long line of prominent Socialists like Mao Tse Tung, Stalin and Lenin and Marx. Meanwhile, one of the surviving Socialists was at that time having a chat with the Pope in Cuba.

It’s hard to stay out of the talk and just listen to it. The Tea Party is not made up of strangers—they look exactly like many of the out of work teachers and civil servants who came here for the first big rally of the Occupy DC movement. They look like the ruddy salt of the earth, with bills to pay and children to raise (one man was holding a sleeping baby, and pushing a double-baby carriage). The difference is that these people exercising their rights to freely argue and say any preposterous things that come to mind are difficult to talk with on any issue at hand—not because they’re right, but because they’re angry and afraid. They’re angry—like the rest of us—about just about everything, and afraid of the government. Often, their ideas about the government of the United States resembles something that was dropped on us from outer space, intent on controlling every aspect of our lives, and that the president—especially this president—is an alien stranger, and certainly not a real American.

It’s likely that inside the court, the conversation was more muted, and the hope exists among reasonable folks that the three-day talks and the subsequent deliberations will produce a reasonable outcome that’s not purely political. The hope now appears slim: it should be remembered that this court by a 5-4 margin produced a ruling that has resulted in the proliferation of Super Pacs in the 2012 election, a result that’s had a huge effect on the political landscape.

Click Here to View Jeff Malet’s photo Coverage the Supreme Court hearings

Protecting Our Schools…Beyond the Half Measures

April 4, 2012

“The gunman entered … and opened fire on ‘everything that moved… How can they attack something as sacred as a school?’”

This witness account, from the school shootings in Toulouse, France is reminiscent of the countless other incidents we have experienced across the United States, most recently at Chardon High School in Ohio.

When a shooting incident occurs in any of our nation’s schools, news travels instantly.  Coverage of the incident dominates our television screens—images of students and faculty streaming outside, parents rushing to police lines, stacks of SWAT teams preparing to enter school doors, media vans lined up on roadways—all of it creating an all-too-familiar scene. So familiar, in fact, that the images and details of each incident have become largely indistinguishable from others.
 
As the discussion has become garbled, so have our strategies for dealing with shooting rampages in our nation’s schools.
 
Following an incident, we’re riveted for a period of a week or so to the news coverage.  We’re systematically guided through the stages of grief by network anchors and pundits: through our guilt for not having recognized the signs earlier…through our anger at the perpetrators…and finally, to our collective view of the incident as an anomaly—something that “could never happen here.” 
 
Months later, another school shooting occurs. This one seemingly disconnected from the one preceding it. And yet, the shooters’ characteristics are remarkably similar:  chronic truancy, religious or political fanaticism, a preoccupation with weapons, someone socially marginalized…on “the fringe,” who is struggling with addiction…and who has announced his intent to kill.  The symptoms and signs remain constant. And in our collective quest to better understand a shooter’s motives, the media narrative often conveys upon us a societal guilt-by-association for the carnage he inflicts.
 
Defining the Problem

On occasion, we take a few steps back to gain perspective rather than catharsis.  And in those moments, it’s possible to transcend our complacency and to see school rampages for what they are: acts of terror.
 
Defining the problem in these terms is a crucial first step toward effective defense—but that step has proven to be surprisingly elusive as we tend to focus instead on the psychology and motivations of the shooter in an incident’s aftermath. But the problem has remained constant:  our children are at risk from those who seek media attention through acts of mass murder.
 
The problem of active shooters in our schools is not new. The first school massacre incident occurred in 1764 at a schoolhouse near Greencastle, Pennsylvania, when four Delaware warriors killed ten children and their schoolmaster. In 1927, a school administrator bombed the Community School in Bath, Michigan, killing 38 people—mostly children.  Numerous other incidents have occurred through the years. The well known and often discussed, like Columbine and Virginia Tech, eclipse those that occurred decades ago, but are no less deadly, like South Pasadena Junior High School (1940) and University of Texas at Austin (1966).
 
What Can be Done?

Identifying students who display at-risk behavior remains key to stopping a school shooting before it occurs.  Homicidal ideation is perhaps the most obvious indicator that a teen may be considering such an act, but there are a host of others, to include: cruelty to animals, suicidal tendencies, and abuse or neglect at home. Reporting comments and observations in advance have prevented many attacks; however, forecasting a school rampage is not always achievable. 

There will be more attacks. As youth addiction to point-and-shoot video games grows, and as weapons become more powerful, a perfect storm of entertainment realism and lethality has gathered, making the potential consequences of future school attacks even more catastrophic than the last.
 
Defending against school rampages is a sensitive topic—far more so than preparing for tornados or fire.  Active shooter drills involving all parties—students, faculty and first responders—are rarely conducted for fear that the visual of the drills alone will be met with cries of outrage from school commissions and PTAs. 

The great irony is that school rampages are responsible for far more fatalities in our schools than severe weather, earthquakes or fires, combined.

So, rather than shrink from tabletop exercises and rehearsals, perhaps we should be insisting on them? Even the simple act of identifying the locations for staging areas, police command posts, media cordons, and reunification sites expedite incident response.  Exercises also give faculty and students a reflexive understanding of school lockdown procedures, and how to effectively respond should they come face-to-face with a gunman. Drills and rehearsals have the added benefit of building relationships with local law enforcement before an incident occurs.  The time for police, first responders and school administrators to be introduced to one another should never be in the midst of a crisis.

Supreme Court and PPACA


“OK, fellas, we’ve just finished three days listening to lawyers debate the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act,” Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts announced when the nine justices met to discuss their decision.

“Ahem!”

“Sorry, ladies.”

“You mean, Obamacare,” said Justice Alito.

“Let’s try to avoid a political theater since courts are supposed to be unbiased,” Roberts responded. 
“Pardon me, Mr. Chief Justice,” said Alito.  “Twenty-six Republican attorneys general are asking us to kill it. Not a single Democrat.  This is political.”

“Did any of you even listen to all those lawyers babbling?” asked Justice Thomas. “Total waste of time!  Why can’t we just decide based on all that stuff the lawyers submit?”

“He speaks! You haven’t asked a single question in over six years, Justice Thomas.  Oral argument is a tradition predating our country,” answered Justice Kennedy.

“These arguments never change anybody’s mind,” retorted Thomas. “But six hours over three days? Bush v. Gore was only one hour in December 2000 and that elected a president.”

“Justice Thomas has a point,” said Justice Scalia.  “We haven’t devoted this much time to a case in, what, fifty years? The Miranda rights case in 1966 ran almost six hours. Even the case that resulted in Nixon’s resignation was only three hours.”

Roberts again: “We have four tough issues. First, is the timing right to hear this case? Most of the law hasn’t taken effect, and we generally avoid hypothetical cases.”

“Let’s do it now,” Alito said. “With an election coming up, this decision could shape the court for decades. Justices Ginsberg and Breyer should retire soon.”

“Objection!!!” Ginsberg and Breyer rejoined.

“Noted,” Roberts said. “Is kicking delaying this decision the right thing to do?”

“No,” said Kennedy, usually the swing vote.  “The public will be outraged. Political gridlock will get worse.”

“Agreed,” said Justice Kagan, the newest justice and an Obama nominee. 

Roberts returned to his agenda, “The second question is the biggie: Can the federal government require individuals and businesses with more than 50 employees to buy health insurance and penalize them if they don’t?”

“How is this mandate any different than a tax?” asked Justice Sotomayor, another Obama nominee. “All employees and businesses are required to Medicare tax that provides health care for seniors.”

“But this requires them to buy it from private insurance companies, not from the government. Therefore, it’s not a tax,” replied Scalia.

“Presidents Truman, Nixon, and Clinton proposed government sponsored universal health care and failed,” said Justice Breyer. “This idea requiring everyone to buy private insurance originated in conservative Republican think tanks in the 1990s after Clinton’s plan failed.”

“That was then,” said Alito. “People don’t want the government to mess with their health care.”

“I don’t get it,” inserted Ginsberg. “Only 45 percent of the nation is covered by employer health care. Another 40 percent have Medicare, Medicaid or military coverage, and 15 percent buy their own or have no coverage. Who are the 55 percent who oppose it? Most of the opposition must be people unaffected by this law.”

“This is an emotional political issue, not a logical financial one for most people,” responded Breyer, the most economically savvy justice. “Even the insurance industry supports this law because it will get another 30 million customers.”

“Politics and emotions are irrelevant. This is not a hard case. Congress overreached. No one has a right to health care under the Constitution,” offered Scalia.

“Agreed,” said Thomas.

“Our third big question is what to do with the rest of the law if we toss out the mandate,” said Roberts. “Some of the law is in effect already. Kids age 22 to 26 are covered under their parents’ insurance.”

“Exactly,” added Sotomayor. “Drug prices for seniors were cut $3 billion this year. Child immunizations and cancer screenings no longer require co-pays. Annual and lifetime caps are no longer legal, so people facing life threatening diseases can’t lose coverage. Unraveling the parts of this law already in effect will hurt a lot people.”

Kagan again: “People will be furious when they learn that their kids are no longer covered and insurers can terminate their policies.”

“That’s the price the country pays when Congress passes a bad law,” said Alito.

“Finally,” continued Roberts, “can Congress require states to expand Medicaid coverage for the poor or face reduced federal funding?”

“The Constitution gives no one, not even poor people, any right to health care,” repeated Scalia.

“I have a headache,” said Kennedy.  “I feel a split decision coming. Should I start writing?”

Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum’s Secret Conversation


Now that Google has broken Apple’s iPhone code, Big Brother has arrived. Google just posted this cell phone conversation between Republican Presidential candidates, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich, on G(otcha)-Tube.

Newt: Rick, we need to talk.

Santorum: OK. Is this call being recorded?

Newt: Not by me or Callista.

Santorum: Together we’re whipping Romney. No one likes the guy. If you’ll drop out, I can win.
Newt: Callista and I could win if you’d drop out. That’s why we call two press conferences every day asking you to drop out. Plus, it’s free TV time.

Santorum: You haven’t won a primary in over a month and I win every week. I even beat you in the deep South.

Newt: Rick, I’ll be 69 on Inauguration Day. Like Reagan was. This is the last shot for Callista and me. Ron and Nancy. Newt and Callista. Synonymous. Four peas in a pod.

Santorum: I was in college drinking beer when Reagan was elected. I didn’t know Reagan, but you’re no Reagan.

Newt: Face it, Rick. You got lucky. During the first 20 debates, you were so far down the stage, the TV cameras couldn’t see you. No one cared about your opinion. Mitt’s millions knocked us off one at a time. You were invisible. Iowa happened before Mitt got to you.

Santorum: I lived in Iowa for 3 years. I visited the home of every voter in Iowa. My kids went to school there.

Newt: Your kids are home schooled by your wife. By the way, what’s her name? Rick, if Iowa had been two weeks later, Mitt’s Super Pac would have crushed you, too. Then Callista and I’d be back on top for the third time. Mitt spent his entire fortune trashing me, but Callista and I are hanging in there because we’ve got strong financial support.

Santorum: Newt, you only have one donor.

Newt: One more than you have.

Santorum: But I’ve had lunch with everyone who’s voted for me.

Newt: You can’t have lunch with 50 million people by November.

Santorum: Voters agree with my morals. They want to give up contraception. Families were bigger and better before sex came out of the closet.

Newt: You can’t run a campaign on social values. And what were you thinking telling Spanish-speaking voters in Puerto Rico they had to learn to speak English? You didn’t win a single delegate. Callista and I have promised $2.50 gas. That’s what people want to hear.

Santorum: If we invaded Iran, got its atomic bombs, and took over its oil fields, gas would be 43 cents a gallon.

Newt: After the primaries, how are you going to attract Independent voters? Reagan taught Callista and me the importance of Democrats for Newt.

Santorum: I don’t have to move to the middle. Most Americans are conservative Christians and agree with me. Besides, Newt, you’ve got a family values problem.

Newt: Reagan was divorced and won. Before you met your wife, she lived for five or six years with a guy 40 years older than she was who wouldn’t marry her. What’s her name?

Santorum: And you were having an affair with a twenty-something staffer while you were prosecuting Clinton for doing just that.

Newt: Come on. Doesn’t Callista look like a First Lady? She led me to Catholicism. My kids love her. Just look at her polish, her hair, her jewelry. Better than Jackie!

Santorum: Newt, if we keep splitting the conservative vote, Mitt’s going to get 35% and win while you and I get 50% and lose. He says he can save the economy, but who wants to read his 59 page plan?

Newt: That’s why Callista and I offered Herman Cain the job as Treasury Secretary. Everyone understands 9-9-9. Reagan taught Callista and me the importance of simply cutting taxes to balance the budget.

Santorum: I’m going to eliminate all taxes on manufacturing. That will create so many jobs that unemployment will disappear. And you don’t need an education to work in a factory.

Newt: I’m going to eliminate capital gains so all rich people – not just manufacturers – will have more money to hire poor people.

Santorum: How do we stop Mitt?

Newt: You need to drop out. Be my VP. If we win, you get the nomination in 2020. If we lose, you’re the immediate front runner in 2016.

Santorum: I’m already the front runner in 2016.

Newt: What’s that beeping sound? Are you recording this?

Santorum: Of course not. What is that beeping sound?

Protecting Our Historic Homes

March 7, 2012

At the latest meeting of the Advisory Neighborhood Commission 2E, officials approved revised designs by the Tudor Place Foundation for new small buildings on the historic home’s grounds along 31st and Q Streets. Such approval was a triumph of balance between neighbors and a historic home. While some did not like the proposed garage designs taking up their line of sight on 32nd Street, the argument did not devolve into a “not-in-my-back-yard” discussion. Tudor Place modified its initial designs after critiques by neighbors and government bodies, and the result was a better design overall.

We must find ways to maintain the historic homes within our neighborhood without going NIMBY on them. They are fragile and expensive to get. Likewise, owners of these properties should always engage the residents in their mission and future. Two historic Georgetown homes – Evermay and Halcyon House – are now under the umbrella of the same non-profit, S&R Foundation, which appears more than willing and able to preserve and protect them. Families, it seems, cannot hang on to such large properties.

As Georgetowners and bearers of the light of history, we must work with the persons or groups that own our historical places. We cannot make it all about us. At the same time, they may own it, but it is not theirs alone.

On Civility and Public Discourse


Sandra Fluke, a Georgetown University Law Center student, found herself the target of radio host Rush Limbaugh on March 1 after recommending that employers cover the costs of contraception in their health care programs at a meeting of the House Democratic Steering Committee. For her remarks, Limbaugh called Fluke a “slut” and a “prostitute.”

“So, Miss Fluke and the rest of you feminazis, here’s the deal,” Limbaugh continued. “If we are going to pay for your contraceptives and thus pay for you to have sex, we want something. We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch.”

“This language is an attack on all women,” Fluke responded. “The millions of American women who have and will continue to speak out in support of women’s health care and access to contraception prove that we will not be silenced.”

After a major outcry against the radio commentator – including a phone call to Fluke from President Barack Obama on March 2 – Limbaugh apologized March 3. “In this instance, I chose the wrong words in my analogy of the situation,” he said. “I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke… In my monologue, I posited that it is not our business whatsoever to know what is going on in anyone’s bedroom nor do I think it is a topic that should reach a presidential level. My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir. I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices.”

Below is a letter by John J. DeGioia, president of Georgetown University, commenting on the fracas.

There is a legitimate question of public policy before our nation today. In the effort to address the problem of the nearly 50 million Americans who lack health insurance, our lawmakers enacted legislation that seeks to increase access to health care. In recent weeks, a question regarding the breadth of services that will be covered has focused significant public attention on the issue of contraceptive coverage. Many, including the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, have offered important perspectives on this issue.

In recent days, a law student of Georgetown, Sandra Fluke, offered her testimony regarding the proposed regulations by the Department of Health and Human Services before a group of members of Congress. She was respectful, sincere, and spoke with conviction. She provided a model of civil discourse. This expression of conscience was in the tradition of the deepest values we share as a people. One need not agree with her substantive position to support her right to respectful free expression. And yet, some of those who disagreed with her position – including Rush Limbaugh and commentators throughout the blogosphere and in various other media channels – responded with behavior that can only be described as misogynistic, vitriolic, and a misrepresentation of the position of our student.

In our vibrant and diverse society, there always are important differences that need to be debated, with strong and legitimate beliefs held on all sides of challenging issues. The greatest contribution of the American project is the recognition that together, we can rely on civil discourse to engage the tensions that characterize these difficult issues, and work towards resolutions that balance deeply held and different perspectives. We have learned through painful experience that we must respect one another and we acknowledge that the best way to confront our differences is through constructive public debate. At times, the exercise of one person’s freedom may conflict with another’s. As Americans, we accept that the only answer to our differences is further engagement.

In an earlier time, St. Augustine captured the sense of what is required in civil discourse: “Let us, on both sides, lay aside all arrogance. Let us not, on either side, claim that we have already discovered the truth. Let us seek it together as something which is known to neither of us. For then only may we seek it, lovingly and tranquilly, if there be no bold presumption that it is already discovered and possessed.”

If we, instead, allow coarseness, anger – even hatred – to stand for civil discourse in America, we violate the sacred trust that has been handed down through the generations beginning with our Founders. The values that hold us together as a people require nothing less than eternal vigilance. This is our moment to stand for the values of civility in our engagement with one another.

‘I’m Sorry’ Don’t Right the Wrong


I could have sworn I heard Brenda Lee making a come back, singing “I’m sorry, so sorry, please accept my apologies.”

Being sorry and apologizing has become something of a fad these days — only recently a Montana judge apologized for sending President Barack Obama an e-mail that the judge himself said was racist. He apologized and said he was sorry.

Gregg Williams, the former Washington Redskins and New Orleans Saints defensive coordinator, apologized for instituting a bounty system for both teams, handing out cash rewards to players who executed exceptionally tough hits on opposing offensive players, giving points for knockouts and stretcher-inducing hits. He said, among other things, that he was, of course, sorry.

And now, to paraphrase the late President Richard Nixon, it’s conservative talk show Rush Limbaugh’s turn in the shooting barrel. Limbaugh, whose reputation for nuance when it comes to what he says on his talk show, is nil, is up to — we believe — his third apology, 21st lost advertiser and two drops from radio stations. Quite a little fire storm in that booth.

So what did the vitriolic, bombastic Limbaugh do this time? Quite a lot. He attacked a Georgetown University law student named Sandra Fluke, who wanted to testify on why her college’s health plan should cover contraception pills.

Here are the most offensive—we think—parts of Limbaugh’s take: “What does it say about the college coed Sandra Fluke who goes before a congressional Committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex? What does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? Makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She’s having so much sex she can’t afford the contraceptives. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex.”

Later, he added that he wanted her to post videos of her sexual activities.

At first, Limbaugh said he was just trying to be humorous because he is, after all, about satire. Limbaugh’s lion-like Wednesday sermon was followed Saturday by a squeaky, mouse-like statement on his website. “My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir,” that statement reads. “I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices.”

Those two words were inappropriate and uncalled for,” Limbaugh said “They distracted from the point I was actually trying to make, and again I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for using those two words.”

Somehow, this doesn’t quite meet the standard for a sincere apologies, or any notion of just what a stink he made by what he said. Anybody with a daughter, a mother, a wife or just a general respect for women should be ready to burn Limbaugh’s house down. Just being satirical.

It wasn’t just the two words — offensive, vile and personal as they may be in this case.

It was the casual way they were strutted out as if it’s just the most natural thing to say about anybody.

Given Limbaugh’s status as a powerful and influential conservative, Republicans and conservatives respondedly weakly. Rick Santorum said Limbaugh’s comments were “absurd.” Mitt Romney said, “I would have said something different” or some such words, leading to wonder what that might have been. House Speaker John Boehner called his statements “inappropriate.” No, sir — wearing an orange tie to an Irish bar on St. Patrick’s day is inappropriate (and dangerous). Calling a smart, intelligent law student a slut and a prostitute — calling any woman that — is, well . . . let Don Imus say it: “Rush Limbaugh is an insincere pig, vile and gutless.”

It takes a little doing to be insulted by Don Imus, but there you are.

Or let’s hear it from Senator John McCain, who called Limbaughs’ comments “totally unacceptable” and “should be condemned by everyone. “

So there. As for writing about this matter, I hope no one was offended or upset. If so, well, you know the drill:
I’m sorry. So sorry. Please accept my apology. Thank you, Brenda Lee.

Georgetowners of the Year: the Friends of Georgetown Waterfront Park

February 8, 2012

The transformation of Georgetown’s land along the Potomac River was completed four months ago. After years in the making, Georgetown Waterfront Park now stands as a stupendous achievement for this town and the District of Columbia. It had many advocates, including our beloved Sen. Charles Percy, who died four days after its official National Park Service dedication ceremony in September. Along with private contributions, the federal and District government stood behind it. Throughout all of this, the local non-profit, the Friends of Georgetown Waterfront Park, never took its eyes off the prize.

The $24-million, 9.5-acre park was a project of the National Park Service, the Friends of Georgetown Waterfront Park and the District of Columbia government. Designed by Wallace Roberts & Todd of Philadelphia, it is the largest park created in D.C. since Constitution Gardens was completed on the National Mall in 1976.

Once the land of old Georgetown’s wharves and then factories, the riverside had deteriorated into parking lots and empty land. In 1985, the District of Columbia transferred the waterfront land to the National Park Service. In the late 1990s, the Georgetown Waterfront Commission made the long push for completion, bringing together volunteers, residents, the rowing community, local leaders and the National Park Service. That group morphed into the Friends of Georgetown Waterfront Park.

The park features pathways, granite artwork that tells the story of Georgetown as a port, a labyrinth, and a bio-engineered river edge, along with a pergola, fountain and river stairs.

While we salute contributors, private and public, and the National Park Service, it is the Friends of Georgetown Waterfront Park—its members and main officers, Robert Von Eigen, Jonda McFarlane, Barbara Downs, Robin Gilbert, Ann Satterthwaite, Grace Bateman, Gretchen Ellsworth, Corinne Bronfman and Roger Stone — that earned the accolade: Georgetowners of the Year 2011. All of them have given us back our river and made “America’s best idea” even better.
[gallery ids="100455,115423,115453,115440,115433" nav="thumbs"]

Jack Evans ReportJanuary 25, 2012

January 25, 2012

Any of you who have heard me speak recently have probably heard me talk about the fact that the District of Columbia is in a better financial position than any other city, county, or state in the country.? Our finances remain strong and the development projects in our city are the envy of our neighbors.

I have the firm belief, however, that we would be doing even better if we had a more straightforward business regulatory structure and took steps to roll back some of the substantial disincentives to those who consider relocating to the District to start a business and raise a family, or who consider moving out of our city when they reach retirement age.? Therefore, in our next budget, I am recommending a number of specific proposals that I hope you will support.

First, our corporate income tax is a tremendous burden at 9.975%, much higher than the 6% Virginia charges and even the 8.25% levied by Maryland.? Particularly when times are tight, how can we expect a business to choose to sacrifice an extra 2-4% of their already slim profit for the privilege of doing business in our city?? ?I propose lowering this tax to 6%. Secondly, on a similar note, the District charges a tax of 9.975% on unincorporated businesses, while our neighbors do not.? We should phase out this tax entirely.

Third, our income tax is too high and is based on bad policy.? As I have said before, a member of the Council cannot claim to be in favor of small business and also of an increase in the income tax, which falls heavily on many small businesses.? I propose to create a more progressive income tax structure by lowering them ? those earning above $350,000 would pay 8.5% rather than 8.95%; those earning between $100,000 and $350,000 would pay 8.0% rather than 8.5%; those earning between $40,000 and $100,000 would be placed in a new bracket and pay 7.5% rather than 8%; and those earning between $10,000 and $40,000 would be taxed at 5.5% rather than 6%.

Fourth, the District made a mistake by decoupling our local estate tax from the federal estate tax.? We should eliminate the District?s estate tax to encourage our retirees to remain residents of the District, investing in our local economy and contributing to our civic and cultural life.

Fifth, we need to repeal the wrongheaded tax on formerly tax-free municipal bonds.? As predicted, the implementation of this tax appears to be resulting in an administrative nightmare.? For example, it is unclear whether taxpayers have enough information to determine whether a share held in an ostensibly grandfathered municipal bond mutual fund nevertheless has become partially taxable as the fund manager executes future trades.? This unfortunately may be just the first onslaught of many where the supposed grandfathering provision could be chipped away.

Sixth, we must sunset the sales tax increase as promised and lower it from 6% back to 5.75%. Part of why I was so skeptical of the deal to grandfather current holdings of municipal bonds while taxing new purchases is that I have been in the government long enough to see promises like this made, and promises broken.? The city promised it would sunset the sales tax increase this year, then broke this promise when the city decided it needed the money in order to pass the largest budget in our history.? We are only a quarter of the way through fiscal year 2012, and the mayor is already projecting $45 million in government overspending despite having raised every tax on the books.? This has to stop.