Georgetown’s Newest Parking Lot?
• July 26, 2011

 

-In the June 30 issue of The Georgetowner, you gave your implicit endorsement of a recent decision to allow left turns to be made from M Street eastbound onto Wisconsin Avenue northbound (“Return of the left turn,” GT Observer). The decision was “coaxed” by Ward 2 councilman Jack Evans and others, probably those living on the side streets north of M Street, which were getting added traffic. According to DDOT officials, they intend to eliminate parking spaces on the south side of M Street to help traffic flow.

While the concept sounds great in theory, one has to wonder whether or not this will add to an already horrific traffic jam on M Street. If anyone truly believes that the entire curb-side lane on M Street will remain empty all day, they are dreaming. Those spaces will be occupied by delivery trucks, UPS and FedEx trucks, and the everyday assortment of illegally parked service trucks and cars. Why should anyone believe that these assorted drivers, who park illegally already, will not merely use this new space as just another area to park illegally? And if that does occur, and since the District police force barely enforces illegal parking on M Street now, this new rule will make M Street even more difficult for all drivers, both residents of Georgetown as well as commuters coming into the District.

Gary Langbaum
Water Street, Georgetown

Remembering Daniel Schorr
•

Contentious, abrasive, thorough, skeptical, dogged, courageous, trustworthy. High praise, indeed.

All of those words are job requirements and descriptions for what today is an endangered species in the field of journalism: the investigative reporter.

All of those words pretty much fit Daniel Schorr, one of the last of the great television and radio reporters who passed away at the age of 93 last week.

Today’s luminaries in the news may have more memorable faces, more dramatic delivery, and they’re certainly better looking, but they can’t hold a candle to the likes of Schorr, who managed to tick off just about every president, elected official and government official he came in contact with, including Nikita Khrushchev, Eisenhower, JFK, CIA directors, senate committee chairs and, most fondly and importantly to him, President Richard Nixon.

Schorr, who died while still working for National Public Radio, came from the Edward R. Murrow informal school of journalism, full of tough, in-your-face, questioning reporters and anchors. That school included Walter Cronkite, once the anchor for the nation on CBS, a network for which Schorr worked until becoming embroiled in intelligence committee findings he discovered, reported and then leaked IN TOTO during the presidency of Gerald R. Ford.

Schorr was discovered by Murrow and became a member of his team, though in his own idiosyncratic way. He was a CBS reporter in Moscow until a KGB reporter refused to let him return. He managed to anger both Barry Goldwater and Lyndon Johnson, but most of all he made Nixon, who didn’t like the media to begin with, turn green and paranoid.

Schorr managed to win Emmy for his Watergate reporting on CBS, for “outstanding achievement within a regularly scheduled program.”

His reporting landed Schorr on Nixon’s infamous “enemies” list a large and eclectic rundown of political foes which also included the likes of Broadway star Carol Channing and New York Jets quarterback Joe Namath. Schorr, like many members of the list, was inordinately proud of his presence there.

In the 1970s, a House Committee investigating the intelligence community, especially the CIA, decided to dub its finding secret. Schorr leaked the findings to the Village Voice after CBS refused to run the story. He was subsequently fired, leading to questions about his integrity, a reporter’s most valuable asset. Schorr, in the end, was vindicated, and you can find an echo of the incident in the recent leaking of classified information about the Afghan war by a watchdog Web site.

Schorr’s passing, like that of Cronkite, is a reminder of the huge changes in the media. They’ve never been replaced.

Gauntlet Thrown Down on Education
•

There’s no question that education reform is the biggest issue in the 2010 District of Columbia election campaign.

Mayor Adrian Fenty ran on a promise to reform the District’s woeful school system and won big time in 2006. Now, he’s backing his designated Chancellor Michelle Rhee in her every move, including her struggle to gain control over hiring and firing teachers. Rhee herself seems to have interjected herself into the campaign when she questioned challenger Chairman Vincent Gray’s commitment to education reform and whether he would support a activist reform chancellor like herself fully.

So it stands to reason, as rumors swirled last week, that when Rhee announced that she was dismissing 241 teachers, the majority of which had received poor or below-minimum performance evaluations under a new and controversial grading system, sooner or later the other shoe would drop.

After all, the 241 (and another 700 or more who are under the cloud of being judged “minimally effective”) teachers, coupled with the nearly 300 who were terminated after a controversial budget crisis last year, amount to over 10 percent of the D.C. teacher workforce. (Some of the 241 were fired for not being properly credentialed).

The firings, based on a new evaluation system called IMPACT, which included at least 50 percent value on test scores, comes about a month before schools are set to open and a little less than two months before the Sept. 14 primaries.

Yet, at this writing, political response has been muted. While the D.C. Teachers Union and its president have vowed to challenge the firings, which would seem to indicate they were surprised by the evaluations, and while there is considerable chat among bloggers, education professionals and the like about what the firings mean and the use of IMPACT, Gray so far has not taken a stand. He said only that he wanted to look further into the basis for the firings.

The firings, and the union protest, come after the District and the union had successfully negotiated a complicated contract agreement earlier this year, which included retroactive pay raises for the teachers but more control over firing by Rhee. An impending mass firing, or the use of IMPACT evaluation for this year appears not to have been mentioned at the time, although the union did object to the use of IMPACT in general.

Mayor Fenty and Rhee aggressively defended the firings as further steps forward in education reform. “Every child in the District of Columbia Public Schools has a right to an effective teacher, in every classroom, every school, every neighborhood, every ward of this city,” Rhee said. Fenty said the action puts the District one step closer to that goal.

Not explained was who would replace the fired teachers.

The issue now becomes who takes command of the education reform issue, an issue in which D.C., for better or worse, is now in the forefront of a national movement. With the firings, that issue has become central to any future debates in the election campaign.

A Reality Headache
•

There is a new mental health problem out there. I call it The Real Housewives of Washington D.C. Stress Syndrome. It’s what can happen to you after watching just one episode of the much-anticipated, much-ballyhooed Bravo reality show which features not only the notorious Michaele Salahi and her husband Tareq but four other so-called D.C. women in proximity to power and status, which is all that counts in Washington, apparently.

I admit it: I watched the first episode. I don’t dare go further, because, well, God only knows what will happen. As it was, I dreamt about the episodes afterward, and they weren’t good dreams. After each commercial break I felt as if I were a runway model, needing to purge. This stuff will do things to you.

For the record, I am no longer quite so bothered about the Salahis. I see now why they wanted so desperately to appear on this show. Like needs like, and to them, the crowd on this show must have seemed like a vision of home. Problem is, the rest of the cast is not happy about being with them, as we found out, and no doubt will continue to find out. Lynda Erkiletian, founder of the T.H.E. Artist Agency, has already started a whispering campaign that Michaele is dangerously thin and an intervention might be required.

Why this show is called housewives of Washington, real or unreal, is beyond me. Much of it seems to be in Virginia, but then again, there was the 1.5 million ratings, big numbers for cable. Who knew there were that many people in McLean?

The Salahis almost feel like naifs in this group, which includes Stacie Scott Turner, a Sotheby’s realtor and the only black member of the housewives. Turner keeps looking agog at her racially insensitive friends, who say things like “I think hair salons should be integrated.” In fact, if you watch this show, you might get the impression that the most powerful people in Washington are not the president, politicians or lobbyists, but celebrity chefs and hair dressers.

Meanwhile, newly arrived Brit Catherine Ommanney (Cat for short, and appropriately so) is vying for the role of queen of mean and making her way in what she sees as the top social circles in Washington. Why anyone would talk to a woman who wrote a self-described “racy” tell-all memoir about living in London called “Inbox Full” is beyond me, but this a world full of “beyond me” moments.

It does make you think about the end of civilization as we know it, as do many things today. Sometimes it seems as if the only American contributions to world popular culture in the 21st century have been zombie movies and reality shows, and often its hard to tell the differences between “28 Days Later” and “The Rachel Zoe Project.”

Michaele complains on this episode that people don’t think she and her husband are people of substance and insists that they are. She feels, after all, that if people hugged more, the world would be a better place, which is hard to argue with since it’s such a jaw dropper. And she has, after all, gone toe to toe with Whoopee Goldberg.

In the world of reality shows, you don’t have to pick on one person, there’s so much to choose from, and that doesn’t even include Billy Bush. What we have here is the physical manifestation of absolute weightlessness, if such a thing is possible.

Remember, this report was written while under the influences of TRHOWDC Syndrome. I cannot be held responsible for my words.

Congress Vs. Corporations
•

I recently had a ringside seat to some of the best in political theater. (To be precise, I wasn’t actually “ringside” but in the center of the ring in the photographer’s pit, and my “seat” was the floor.) I am referring to the separate hearings this month on Capitol Hill between members of the Senate and prominent figures from Wall Street and the oil industry.

These hearings represented but another chapter in the century’s old tug-of-war between advocates of free markets against those pushing for stronger regulation. Earlier chapters were punctuated by the breaking up of the big corporate trusts by Teddy Roosevelt, and the establishment of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) as a response to abuses that precipitated the Great Crash of 1929 (and the subsequent Depression). Both of these measures provided firm underpinnings for the long-term health and growth of our economy and society. Today, after an extended period of relaxed regulation and government oversight, another major reexamination is certainly in order.

The behavior of Goldman Sachs and BP was predictable. The officers of any corporation owe their allegiance first and foremost to their shareholders, and their goal is to maximize profits to those shareholders. Nothing implies that these corporate goals have to be consistent with the American public interest.

BP, of course, is primarily owned by foreign shareholders. But much of the American public would be surprised at the large degree to which foreign interests own shares in most major American-based corporations. And many do not appreciate that the oil BP will produce in deep water, for which it pays minimal royalties to our government, is destined for the international oil markets. The pollution that these wells produce, of course, stays right here in the USA.

Goldman Sachs derives much of its profit from its trading desk, where many believe it uses its market-making position to unfair advantage and to the detriment of its customers. Many of these activities, while creating profits for Goldman Sachs, provide questionable benefits to the overall economy.

It’s all about accountability and responsibility. An economy functions best when resources are optimally allocated, so costs to the environment must be born by the polluters. Unfortunately, ethical behavior on Wall Street often takes a back seat to the allure of big money. To quote James Madison, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.” Some have argued that our fragile economy cannot tolerate further regulation, but the opposite is certainly true.

The author, a former mutual fund manager, contributes photographs to The Georgetowner and The Downtowner.
[gallery ids="99132,102684" nav="thumbs"]

Op-Ed: Georgetown University Shows Disregard for Its Neighbors
•

We recognize that Georgetown University, as a world-class educational institution, makes positive contributions to our neighborhoods. Unfortunately, being the University’s neighbor also has major disadvantages, such as group-house noise, alcohol-fueled student misbehavior, traffic and parking congestion, trash, and blighted, unsafe housing stock. Georgetown University’s 2010 expansion plan promises more of the same.

GU’s plan proposes to increase enrollment by approximately 3,400 students from its 2009 level, but fails to provide any additional significant on-campus housing. It is clear GU will continue to rely on the existing homes in the surrounding neighborhoods — Georgetown, Burleith, Glover Park, and Foxhall — to house a substantial portion of its student body. This is unconscionable, irresponsible, and threatens the viability of our communities.

Other negative aspects of its plan include the construction of new mixed-use buildings in West Georgetown, despite the protests of residents and the accompanying increase in traffic through our already overburdened neighborhoods. Our communities are also concerned about the environmental impact of the proposed 83-foot-tall utility plant chimney, the proposed new loop road, the roof over Yates Sportscenter, and the alignment of 38th Street with GU’s main campus and hospital entrance.

Georgetown University and President DeGioia have failed to effectively manage off-campus student behavior. Disorderly conduct, late night noise, and trash violations resulting in rodent infestation all fundamentally degrade our quality of life. The absence of on-campus housing in the proposed plan assures continuation of the town-gown stalemate that has defined our relations with the University for far too long.

An outpouring of concern by citizens has galvanized neighborhood associations representing the communities most affected by GU’s intransigence. We stand together in opposing the GU plan.

We would like GU to honor its pledge to be a good neighbor, one of the 2010 plan’s own guiding principles. We intend to hold GU to its responsibility to comply with the DC Zoning Regulations, which provide that a college or university shall be located so that it is not likely to become objectionable to neighboring property because of noise, traffic, number of students, or other objectionable conditions.

Our residents are joined in the fight for their neighborhoods. We expect Mayor Fenty and Councilmember Jack Evans and other councilmembers to support our efforts. D.C.’s Office of Planning and D.C.’s Zoning Commission need to require GU to comply with D.C.’s zoning regulations and help us protect our communities.

The Burleith Citizens Association, Citizens Association of Georgetown, Foxhall Community Citizens Association, Glover Park Citizens Association and Hillandale Homeowners Association

For a point-by-point rebuttal to GU’s recent letter to the community visit www.cagtown.org.

Trouble Brews In Texas
•

Ever feel that the times are even stranger than you imagined, full of confusion and peril?

In other words, you don’t know whether to laugh, cry or move to a cave?

Let’s take the recent 10-5 vote by the Texas Board of Education to do a little attitude readjustment when it comes to school textbooks. Apparently fearing that these books, which are often taken up by nationwide textbooks, have gotten way too liberal of late, they’ve trimmed, cut and added to have kids learn more in line with their way of thinking.

Some historical topics that were bandied about: Jefferson Davis’ inauguration speech — the one where he assumed the presidency of the Confederacy — should have equal standing with that of Abraham Lincoln’s. Or that capitalism should be referred to in books as free enterprise — a cause already espoused by most conservatives who see the very same free enterprise under attack from the Obama administration.

Wait, there’s a little bit more: the new textbooks will downgrade Thomas Jefferson’s standing as a philosophical founding father, will refer to the United States as a constitutional republic, not a democracy, suggest that the founding fathers actually did not believe in the separation of church and state, would refer to the slave trade as more of an economic, world transaction, elevate the historical significance of Newt Gingrich, Phyllis Schaffly, the Moral Majority and the National Rifle Association, and make a martyred hero out of Joe McCarthy.

It’s one thing to add things and subtract things, to move this one up and this one out. But it’s quite another to rewrite history altogether, with little basis in fact. To put, for instance, Lincoln and Davis on an equal footing is to misunderstand the Civil War altogether. To downgrade Thomas Jefferson to the point of near invisibility is to skew the founding of our country wildly.

And yet, the vote and the ideas behind this could reflect the political white noise that’s heard all around the country these days, a lot of it stemming from a populist rage that’s sick of politics as usual and afraid of big government all at the same time. There’s genuine anger here, but also irrational fear of what lies ahead.

It’s true, of course, that before the advent of Reagan, a certain revisionist tone crept into national history and social studies textbooks. But talking about and studying the plight of Native Americans as they faced the America’s westward push, or studying slavery or the Civil Rights movement, or labor movements or women’s fight for equality were issues that were not about ideology, but about invisible or neglected historical facts. It may be a fact that there were Communist spies in the United States, but McCarthy’s ruthless and self-serving use of his committee’s investigative powers was decidedly unheroic, and created a country-wide atmosphere of fear.

Many of our early settlers here came to escape religious persecution than proceeded often to persecute their co-religionists, including Catholics. There was a good reason that the idea of separation of church and state made up part of the thinking of founding fathers.

The Texas school board members who voted for the textbook changes don’t just want to fill gaps or add missing information. They want to rewrite history or expunge parts of it. Instead of burning books, they want to turn them into conservative fairy tales.

Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin ‘Restore Honor’ to Washington
•

 

-Glenn Beck is coming to town. So is Sarah Palin. They’re bringing about 300,000 folks with them for a major conservative rally called “Restoring Honor”, a fevered brain child of Beck’s originally meant to be about honoring American servicemen—and who can argue with that—but which has now enlarged the scope of events to Beck’s vision of America’s future. This Saturday, 10 am -1 pm, no signs or guns allowed.

Beck gave his own estimate of the number of people likely to come in requesting a permit. Which he got.

If that many show up, you can bet pretty much how most of them—including Beck and Palin—feel about the 9/11 mosque that’s supposed to be going up a shy two blocks from the hallowed ground of where the Twin Towers once stood: No. Absolutely not.

One of the rallying cries over the mosque controversy is that it’s an example of massive insensitivity on the part of the planners, and anybody who supports the idea, including President Barack Obama – who in any case said he didn’t actually give his approval for the project, but just wants to support freedom of religion. You can’t argue with that.

On the matter of insensitivity…let’s give a big raspberry for Mr. Beck. He’s holding his massive rally on the mall on the anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech. Beck claims he didn’t realize that it was the same date until it was too late, and the plans had already been made.

Perhaps he learned it on the nightly news.

But in any case, Beck says he has a dream, too, and that this is very much about civil rights and that he now carries the mantle of American visionary. It was not reported whether he cried or not while explaining himself. He did not mention the mosque at the time.

Here are some things about the mosque issue. New York Mayor Bloomberg supports it. So do many people who also believe in religious freedom and freedom in general, and whose beliefs are every bit as vehement as the anti-mosque crowd.

Now you can understand – if not necessarily agree with – the relatives and victims of 9/11 on their stand. They don’t’ want a mosque there in that proximity (two blocks) because it would be an insult to them and the victims. But like a lot of things tend to do, this thing has gotten a little out of hand.
Ask a basic question: how far away should this mosque (actually an Islamic Cultural Center supporting Inter-faith activities, according to its supporters) be? If not two blocks, how many? If not lower Manhattan, where? New Jersey? Florida? Well, no. They don’t want mosques there either. Or in Tennessee or in various places in the West and Midwest. These folks are saying: Be afraid. Be very afraid of the other.

Maybe they needn’t worry. Of the millions of dollars the proposed center would cost, only around $15,000 has been raised, which makes its appearance unlikely any year soon. And the Inman of the center is in any case a Sufi, the least militant, the most tolerant sect of Islam that exists.
But it’s too late for that. The anti-mosque movement — which is what it appears to be — is spreading like wildfire, which is perhaps what you might call an intended consequence of the actions of the opposition.

High Hopes for Health Care
•

 

-In a recent New York Times op-ed, Paul Krugman, echoing Abraham Lincoln, remarked that the case for universal health care was “an appeal to our better angels, urging politicians to do what is right, even if it hurts their careers.” His politics and bias, whether you agree with them or not, are immaterial here. More important is to understand his use of a phrase now firmly ensconced in the American rhetorical canon, one which may help us to see how the passing of a landmark piece of legislation on Sunday fits into the larger picture of American social policy.

Better angels. It’s a Lincoln original, a curious turn of phrase he used, against the advice of his Cabinet and colleagues, to describe an aspect of America’s internal conscience. It implies the smallest lozenge of good residing within everyone, heavenly, metaphysical, one we strain to hear over the din of heated argument and impassioned emotion. Our ongoing struggle with this innate empathy also calls to mind a stark truth: that American crusades for civil and social justice, the ones we now deem unshakable and sacrosanct, were never popular with contemporaries.

At the turn of the 19th century, those who had fought so hard to guarantee free speech in the Constitution faced its erosion by sedition laws. In Lincoln’s own time, emancipation was reviled by the South and thought imprudent and reactionary in the North. A century later, a handful of legislators, state politicians, and citizens showed they would go to any length to curb the presidency’s quest for civil rights chartered by law. To question the spirit of these movements today, now removed from any political or prejudicial skew, would be to question what is now snugly assimilated into the country’s heritage.

Do we possess the prescience to feel certain the cause for health care will be remembered similarly? No, but we have a feeling it will be. Of the three fundamental rights Thomas Jefferson ascribed to humanity, life and liberty are the most easily stripped by the vindictive, heartless, cutthroat side of mankind. We must never allow that side to take ground. We must recognize for ourselves and for each other that the cause for life, like the cause for liberty, will be threatened constantly by the shallow, inhuman interests that lurk on the fringes of a harsh world. We must pledge to never lie beholden to these. We must pledge to take the steps necessary to ensure that our citizens, one and all, have the resources they need to preserve their own life and the lives of loved ones.

This may require us to quiet ourselves for a moment and listen within to that which binds us together as Americans, and as human beings. The better angels of our nature.

Evans for Chairman?
•

Well into the middle months of Mayor Adrian Fenty’s final year of his first term, there is an unsettled, faintly ominous feel to the political and economic atmosphere in the District of Columbia.

While the mayor appears to have made significant progress in many areas, large sections of voters throughout the city seem to be unhappy with Fenty, as well as his chosen Chancellor of Public Schools, Michelle Rhee. Speculations have it that some members of the city council, notably Chairman Vincent Gray, who has been visibly at odds with the mayor over a number of issues, will challenge the mayor’s re-election.

No one is exactly betting against the mayor, who has a fat war chest. But electoral politics are a background noise to the business of the council, which now has to contend with a looming budget deficit of the kind not seen by most of its members.

The man least fazed by turbulent political clouds or impending economic troubles, and who probably knows more about them than anyone on the council, is the council’s finance committee chair, Jack Evans. More telling, Evans is the longest continuously serving councilman, having won a special Ward 2 election in 1991, when he emerged the winner over a large field.

Evans has seen the mayor-council relationship ebb and flow over his nearly 20 years in office. “It’s never been ideal,” he says. “Mayor Kelly and council Chair John Wilson were at odds often. Mayor Williams at first didn’t have much to do with the council but that changed in his second term, where there was a lot more contact and cooperation. Right now, I’d say, we’re having some problems in that arena. It’s no secret that Chairman Gray and the mayor rarely communicate. There are several people on the council who’ve had no words with the mayor for months. Maybe years.”

Evans isn’t one of them. It is generally recognized that Evans, who supported Linda Cropp in the mayoral race, has become Fenty’s most consistent and strongest supporter on the council, as well as supporting the school reform efforts of Rhee. “That’s fair to say,” he says. “I think the mayor is a doer, he believes in action, and when something’s done or settled, he moves on.”

The electoral hubbub doesn’t really concern Evans, although if Chairman Gray should run for mayor, “I can tell you I will run for chairman,” he says. “No question.”

Right now, though, politics are not at the top of his list. The budget is. “We’ve been very lucky in terms of the economy,” he says. “We’ve done extremely well and haven’t felt the main brunt of things. That’s not true anymore. As everybody has noted, we’re facing a shortfall of nearly $500 million. It’s almost a cliché, but this requires some extremely tough, painful decisions. We’re better off than other jurisdictions, but things are not going to get better right away.

“There’s only so many places you can look, so many things you can do. Now we’re going to be perhaps talking about looking at freezes on wages, maybe even pay cuts. We are required to balance the budget.”

Evans is by far the most experienced member of the council when it comes to financial and budget manners, making him ideally positioned to be heard in his role as head of the Committee on Finance and Revenue.

Mayor Fenty is scheduled to bring the Fiscal Year 2011 Budget Request Act of 2010 and the Fiscal Year of 2011 Budget Support Act of 2010 to the Council April 1.

“That’s where it starts,” Evans says. The council will hold a public briefing on the mayor’s budget plan on April 12.