If I were a talent scout looking for the best and brightest to employ out of a college or law school class, my sights would be set upon an individual who appears to be an up and coming legal star. Juan Carlos Estevez, who graduated from the Arlington campus of George Mason University Law School on May 17, 2008, is just that individual. A graduate of the Ivy League school, Cornell University, and originally hailing from Miami, Estevez is an exemplary model of the caliber of students that employers are seeking. He seems to have it all.

Bright, engaging, mature, quick-thinking on his feet, and possessing the ability to astutely assess people and situations quickly and accurately, he fulfills a tall order for an attorney at any stage of the game. It becomes immediately apparent that Estevez has a keen analytical mind, can organize his thoughts and synthesize information rapidly, and would prove to be, undoubtedly, a lively legal advocate for whatever area of law he decides to, ultimately, pursue.   He excels in his communication skills and whether he becomes a corporate or private attorney, or chooses to become a prosecutor or public defender, anyone who is on the receiving end of his services will certainly benefit from interaction with him. His personable demeanor and commanding presence present a positive image of the quality student that all aspire to be and that the George Mason Law School has obviously produced.

In this day and age, any good attorney worth his salt has a requisite amount of leadership skills.   Already proven in this regard, Estevez served as the American Bar Association Student President at Mason. He also came out first place, along with his teammate, Robert May, in the Wechsler National Criminal Law Moot Court that was held in Buffalo, New York. Held in favorable regard by judges he has studied under and worked with, Estevez is an additional asset for his bilingual Spanish-speaking capability.

This aspiring attorney has certainly made a positive mark throughout his scholastic tenure at Mason, and he has left a favorable impression of the goals of public service.  There is no doubt that his ambitious efforts will lead to future success that will serve as favorable memories of his days well spent in Arlington, Virginia.

 The sudden and recent dismissal of Chris Core from WMAL following his show was undoubtedly a shock to Mr. Core as well as his listening audience. With his tenure of employment at the station that lasted more than three decades, he was not given an opportunity to say “farewell” to his listening audience nor was he given time to swallow the reality of his jolting departure. 

 After a historically successful and enduring period of employment with Citadel Communications, the directive came down from the corporate office. Mr. Core deserved far better treatment than he received, and so did his listeners. Following his show-- to drop a bombshell like this one-- was a highly insensitive and cruel act. .

Mr. Core demonstrated the epitome of class and finesse amidst this unsettling life circumstance that likely resulted in causing him and his family a significant amount of distress.   He did not condemn the manner in which this situation was handled nor did he criticize any personnel involved in this decision and egregious action. 

It is clearly apparent that the corporate echelon and leadership of Citadel leaves a lot to be desired in the arena of human relations and personnel management. The determination that led to this decision to terminate Mr. Core, and the subsequent manner in which it was carried out, conveys how poorly the managerial staff treats employees who have proven themselves and enhanced the company’s reputation by serving with the highest degree of professionalism and pride.

Mr. Core excelled in all respects and certainly did not deserve this type of treatment. The performance displayed in the method of his dismissal speaks volumes to the lack of finesse, insensitivity, and ineffectual human relations skills that are utilized by Citadel. Those who were a part of this disgraceful display of strategically misplaced corporate tactics ought to be ashamed of themselves.

The allegations levied against Republican Senator John McCain, by The New York Times, demonstrate nothing less than an outrageous effort to attempt to destroy the man’s reputation. Citing nameless sources that cannot be validated or verified, the paper employs a baseless tactic of trying to take advantage of a current political climate to create and manipulate a non-story. The manner in which the article is written seems to be nothing more than a mean-spirited, unethical ploy devised to shatter the man’s character and fine reputation by suggesting and implying so called “facts.” If the paper believes that their verbal attack of this man will sway people to cast their vote in another direction by influencing their viewpoints and tarnishing the reputation of Senator McCain, they are clearly misdirected in their shameful strategy.

The New York Times has used their medium and focused their reporting on tactics that discredit a highly respected and honest man who has honorably served this country. The paper’s lack of responsible and ethical reporting has demeaned it to a level devoid of professionalism, and it has stopped to the lowest possible level.

Regardless of one’s political affiliation or choice of candidate, anybody with an ounce of common sense will recognize the motivation and meaning behind these actions that target and attempt to discredit Senator McCain. What the paper must realize is that their unbecoming conduct has now motivated even greater numbers to cast their vote for McCain.

Barack Obama is continuing to sail full speed ahead in the primaries. His additional win in Wisconsin, his ninth consecutive one, is merely adding credence to the idea that voters have strong feelings about which Democrat they want to have compete down the final runway towards the presidency. Hillary Clinton is probably getting more anxious prone by the minute, and her ire is likely heating up by the steam that Obama has already generated with unstoppable enthusiasm. With her unrelenting desire to overcome the pace and popularity of Obama, she is now more determined than ever to push forward pulling out all the stops.

Though she hopes to gain a significant portion of the female vote, there are likely a number of women who will choose Obama over her simply because of his gender. If bets were being placed in Las Vegas, the likely winner would be Obama on the basis of the notion that he doesn’t impress the outside world as a leader who could become petty, catty, threatened, or envious. Obama projects an image of a man secure within himself, certain of his desires, and forthright in his desire to lead this country with vision and a positive outlook. He would recognize his role, place competent advisors in appropriate places, and would facilitate cooperation and collaboration with a broad-minded approach. He should be an effective leader by proving he could take a stand when necessary and do the right thing even if he doesn’t win a moment of praise or a situational popularity contest.  

Can Hillary do the same? Maybe-- and maybe not. A woman in power can be a tricky scenario. Some female leaders, like Obama, are secure within themselves and are not threatened by the competency or skill of others around them. Thus, they can work well with everyone and make things happen.   They are wise enough to know that if they surround themselves with skilled people who believe in their mission and work hard at what they do, they will ultimately make the leader shine.   They are not derailed by their anger, their disappointments, or their possible momentary failures. The other side of the coin depicts the female leader who feels a sense of urgency to prove herself every inch of the way, and let no one stand in her path to do so. She wants no one else to show too well or tell too much on the show and tell rating scale. For female leaders who are too focused on themselves, they disadvantageously affect their position, negatively impact their workers and those around them, and put a dent of disappointment in the at-large community.

Will Hillary embody the traits that Obama is already demonstrating or will she become so obsessed with a must win at all costs strategy that she falls into the piranha prone leadership hierarchy?  Voters are cautiously listening and carefully watching every word, gesture, and nuance that the candidates are conveying. In the end, the most genuine and inner confidant candidate will likely score the home run.

Senator Barack Obama (D-Illinois) is sweeping the country like a whirlwind, and he is reviving a sense of excitement, enthusiasm, hope, and renewal among voters who are looking towards the upcoming election as a new beginning with a new president. Though he has been criticized for his lack of extensive experience in a leadership role as well as his deficiency in outlining exactly what comprises his message of “hope” and “change,” he continues to generate interest and stimulate crowds. People may ask, “What is it about this guy, Obama?”

Obama is clearly focused on his goals, and he possesses directional determination. He knows what he wants, and he knows how to go after it. He is a powerful orator with sophisticated salesmanship capabilities. The product he knows how to sell is Barack Obama. 

“I may be skinny but I’m tough, too”, says Obama. Though he can be resolute and assertive, he is savvy enough to know how to balance his tenacity and combine it with class, polish, and genuine amiability. His toughness is not undercut or overwhelmed by crass mean-spiritedness nor is it embraced with pettiness and catty behavior that often comprises the Queen Bee Syndrome that tends to predominate in female-led arenas.

It is obvious by the response to Obama, in these early stages of the political game, that he is being perceived as a breath of fresh air. Which way that breeze will ultimately blow is too soon to say for certain, but it is easily recognizable that his scorecard is progressing by leaps and bounds.    

If anyone ever doubts the extent,  severity, and ramifications  of domestic violence, they only need to consider the case of George Jenewicz in New Jersey who was initially convicted of killing his live-in girlfriend, Eunice Gillens, by dismembering her and cooking her head to destroy the woman’s features.  Though he argued he shot her in self defense and dismembered her in a panic, the jury convicted him of murder.  That conviction, however, was overturned by the New Jersey Supreme Court.  Despite citing trial errors as rationale for the Court’s decision, it is readily apparent that serious and problematic issues encompassed this relationship which resulted in brutal and tragic victimization.

Individuals who become entrenched in relationships that are replete with conflicts and problems that escalate into violent episodes need to understand that the violence is not a one-time occurrence.  To the contrary, it is only the start of what often evolves into an increasingly volatile and highly dangerous situation. If the abuser issues verbal threats to harm or kill the significant other or if weapons, such as guns or knives, may be in the abuser’s possession, the lethality risks are greatly augmented.  The verbal threats, as well as the potential for actions to follow words, should never be ignored or minimized.  The probability that something will happen is a reality that can result in the victim being severely injured or, as in the case of Ms. Gillens, killed.

Commonly, victims in abusive situations will proffer a broad range of excuses for the abusers’ behavior. They will find fault with themselves and will accept blame for their abuser’s actions.  They find reasons not to leave, and they justify remaining in a violent environment.  Consequently, the cycle of violence begins to spin like a wheel out of control. 

Victims of domestic violence need to recognize that there are many alternatives to enduring abuse, and they include access to victim service providers, programs, and an array of resources.  Victims who find themselves in these situations need to take charge of their lives and escape their abusers before they parallel the tragic story of Eunice Gillens.

As time progresses, Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho) is continually proving to be a concretely poor specimen of a public servant and a total embarrassment to his colleagues in the United States Congress .  Not that long ago, his antics in a men’s restroom in Minnesota, where he gave hand signals and toe tapping lures beneath a bathroom stall to an undercover cop stationed in an adjacent  stall, depicted how low he could really go to obviously attempt to solicit sex in a public forum.  Subsequent to his arrest following the incident, Mr. Craig copped a guilty plea to the charge anticipating, that by doing so, it would remain hidden beneath a cloak of secrecy.  He barked up the wrong tree on that assumption when the news broke and revelations of his purported behavior surfaced.

Mr. Craig immediately went on the defensive and drove down the self-imposed path of denial to negate any wrongdoing and strongly assert that he was “not gay.” In so doing, he tried to maneuver the American people, like puppets on a string, and attempted to play them as fools by expecting them to believe that he didn’t realize what the implication of his plea bargain meant.  He unrelentingly maintained that he did nothing wrong and lamented later that he didn’t really understand the impact of his plea at the time.  Contrary to what most people-- high profile or otherwise-- would do in a similar situation, he didn’t call an attorney and thought he could rescue himself from his own hot water that he found himself drowning in.

As he began to sink lower in public opinion and received the cold shoulder brush of his colleagues on Capitol Hill, Craig stated he would resign and then, at a later date, reneged on his assertion.  Apparently having no shame or sense of embarrassment and putting his family through the inner turmoil of wondering who the real Larry Craig is, he now continues his tiresome fight to have the guilty plea erased.  He pursues grinding the wheels of the criminal justice system and engages his attorneys to discover judges who will seize some letter of the law that can be twisted to read the way Craig and his attorneys want it to.  Craig has willingly and knowingly mired himself in a personal and political mud puddle.

The latest appeals brief makes a last-ditch attempt that points to ludicrous intimations that the law enforcement officer, Sgt. Dave Karsnia, who caught Craig in the act “invited it.” It also attempts to emphasize that the act was not criminal because Craig’s actions did not affect “multiple victims.”  Craig and his attorneys appear to be reaching for the stars and, hopefully, the judges who hear oral arguments and review this appeal will utilize the breadth of their knowledge and experience to recognize that this one needs to be tossed as fast as a streak of lightening.

The recent announcement by former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga.) that she is running for President of the United States, as a Green party candidate, should raise some immediate warning flags.  A loud and clear message was sent to her when her own constituents voted her out of office in her last run for congressional office.  It seems as though, not long ago, her behavior on Capitol Hill caused extreme disfavor with voters and rightfully so.

At the time, when Ms. McKinney attempted to pass through a security checkpoint in the Longworth House Office Building on Capitol Hill and did not have her security identification displayed, a U. S. Capitol police officer attempted to stop her.  When he touched her arm, in an effort to get her to halt, Ms. McKinney defiantly punched him in the chest.  She subsequently expressed dissatisfaction concerning what occurred and indicated the officer should have recognized her as a member of Congress and implied that she should not have been stopped.  “Even if you’re stopped, you’re not supposed to hit a police officer.  It’s simple. Even the high and haughty should be able to stop and say, ‘I’m a congressman, and then everyone moves on,” stated former U. S. Capitol Police Chief Terrance W. Gainer. 

It became quickly apparent, however, that Ms. McKinney thought she was someone so special that she was above and beyond following the rules and obeying orders.  She obviously did what she felt like doing with total disregard for authority.  Instead of choosing to cooperate and respond in a mature and responsible manner, she demonstrated blatant recalcitrance.  As a member of Congress, Ms. McKinney’s conduct was unbecoming in all respects.  Her attempt to publicly chastise the police officer for his performance of duty was a means for her to deflect attention from herself and an attempt to place blame on a law enforcement officer who was performing his required and assigned duties. 

In addition, Ms. McKinney added fuel to the fire and displayed a degree of ignorance when she noted that U. S. Capitol Police officers should be able to recognize all 535 members of Congress.  Instead of immediately acknowledging her behavior and accepting responsibility for her actions, she lowered her perceived public image and disgraced her position.

If the truism, “Actions speak louder than words “prevails, the thought of Ms. McKinney running for President should send shivers down the spine of U.S. citizens.  Imagine her as the leader of the United States in a role that would involve developing and maintaining cooperative and collaborative relationships with other countries and interacting with foreign leaders and dignitaries.  Imagine her having to deal with delicate situations in a manner replete with courtesy, finesse, and sensitivity.  Moreover, imagine her having to acknowledge mistakes, rectify problems, and initiate solutions.

The people of Georgia spoke loudly and clearly when they failed to reelect her to office after the fiasco on Capitol Hill. It is apparent that her actions caused voters in her state a considerable degree of embarrassment as their representative in Congress.   They obviously had enough of her public shenanigans.  Ms. McKinney’s behavior and her unwarranted vocal and critical outcries only served to demean her personally and professionally, and her actions certainly did not command the dignity and respect associated with her position. 

Ms. McKinney seems to like attention in whatever way she can get it.  Since she has been out of the limelight and tucked away in the realm of obscurity, her new founded attempt to run for office as President of the United States, once again, brings her into the forefront of public attention that will likely satisfy her apparent craving for the media spotlight and self promotion.

 

The selection of Cornelius Kerwin as the newly installed president of American University in Washington, D. C. was a superb choice.  Kerwin has historical and enduring ties to the university as an alumnus, a faculty member, former Dean of the School of Public Affairs, former Provost, and Acting President, prior to his current appointment.  If anyone knows A.U. inside and out, it is Kerwin.  His dedication and commitment to the university has been demonstrated repeatedly throughout his involvement with the institution.

As an alumnus with two degrees from the A.U., I had the pleasure and privilege to work with President Kerwin when he was Dean of the School of Public Affairs.  In addition to his regular duties at the time, he took on the added responsibility of leading an alumni committee that was actively involved in the university setting.  I worked with him closely as chairperson of one of the subcommittees.  Kerwin’s keen intellect, his devotion to students, his collaborative efforts with other sectors of the university, as well as the community, and his unrelenting desire to continually make A.U. an even better school than it is became immediately apparent.  His enthusiasm is contagious, and Kerwin has continuously fueled the motivation of alumni to work together and join him in enhancing both alumni and student relations.  My own continuing enthusiasm and ongoing professional dedication is fueled by the spirit of this leader whose vision is boundless and whose efforts are tireless. 

My days at American are memorable.  I obtained an outstanding education that equipped me with a valid perspective of the “real world” combined with the necessary knowledge to prepare me for my career path.  Having earned a Master’s degree in The Administration of Justice, I now have worked in my chosen field for the past 29 years.  I have had a rewarding career with experiences that I likely would have never had otherwise.  I quickly discovered that a degree from A.U. was significant, and employers immediately recognized its importance.

According to a U. S. and News World Report, the Department of Justice, Law and Society ranks number three in the country and the School of Public Affairs, where it is housed, ranks in the top ten.  A.U. was an outstanding school when I was there, but these statistics only serve to enhance the fact that it has, over time, become an even more prestigious institution.  With outstanding faculty from all walks of life and with the advent of many more programs in place than when I attended, American University has become a preeminent institution in the nation’s capitol and in the country.  Moreover, there could be no better person, other than President Kerwin, to lead this university.

“American University is a strong, influential, and confident institution.  We are proud of our past, proud of what we are today, but restless and aware that we have not yet reached the full measure of our potential,” says President Kerwin.  He continues, “We will be a presence on the national stage, providing ideas, insights, and leaders to influence how America develops and shares its strength with the world.  We will continue to function as a premier, global university, bringing the world to A.U. and A.U. to the world.”  

While attending a holiday party at the university’s Katzen Arts Center on December 13, 2007, I had the opportunity and pleasure to see President Kerwin again and personally congratulate him on his new position.  I thanked him for all he has done and continues to do.  With his ardent determination and insightful vision, it is certain he will confront challenges and forge new paths that will enable the university to soar with limitless possibilities and pride itself on being one of the best universities in the country.

U. S. Appeals Court Judge E. Grady Jolly astutely recognizes and correctly acknowledges the fact that the prosecution of former Border Patrol Agents, Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean, “got out of hand.”  The resulting consequences of their prosecution resulted in  overbearing and unwarranted sentences of 11- and 12- year prison terms.  
U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton argues the sentences were in line with sentencing guidelines that were set by Congress.  However, the fact remains that those sentences would not have been imposed if the particular charges—specifically, assault with a deadly weapon, discharge of a firearm in relations to a crime of violence and for a civil rights violations—had not been brought against the agents.  Ramos and Compean were law enforcement officers doing their job, albeit a difficult one, and the prosecution seemingly was, in fact, overzealous in their prosecution under the federal statute.

Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila was portrayed as a “victim” though he was in this country illegally and was smuggling a tremendous amount of drugs over the border.  Moreover, he did not comply with the agents’ demands, and they felt threatened and feared for their lives as a result of his failure to obey their orders. Consequently, Aldrete-Davila's was fired upon by one of the agents which resulted in him being hit in the buttocks.  Subsequent to this encounter, Aldrete-Davila was granted immunity to testify against the agents. 

Though U. S. Attorney Johnny Sutton acknowledges the sentences were high and maintains that the agents were culpable of committing violations of the law for which a jury found them guilty, he must not fail to understand that the result of all that is because of the initial charges that were levied in the first place.  Even if the agents had done something improper, it likely did not have to rise to the level of indictment and prosecution that it did.

Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila is, by no means, an innocent so-called “victim.”  The extreme sentences that have been levied against these two agents are a miscarriage of justice.  Hopefully, the other judges, along with Judge Jolly, will have the intrinsic common sense, keen intelligence, and solid backbone to do the right thing and issue an appropriate ruling that throws out these outrageous convictions that stemmed from charges that should never have been levied in the first place.    

 

Duane Homan was my friend, and he embraced and enjoyed life.  He was energetic, full of zest, and had a wonderful sense of humor.  He was selfless, kind, caring, and generous.   In the prime of his life, at age 36, his time on this earth was abruptly cut short.  He passed away on November 30, 2007 after being diagnosed with esophageal cancer that was diagnosed in early October 2007.  The cancer was aggressive, rapid in its progression, and encased his entire body.  Though seriously ill and hospitalized, he was gallant in the overwhelming and intense battle with this insidious disease.  Facing unchangeable odds and to the extent he could, he maintained a spirit that included being jovial with medical staff at the hospital.

I met Duane two years ago when he was a manager for Verizon Wireless, and he was impressive in his role.  He was extremely knowledgeable concerning his product line.  Moreover, he was always accommodating and placed a priority on effective and efficient customer service combined with trust.  He made every feasible effort to please his customers.   After leaving Verizon, he progressed in his career to become the Sales Director for Buzz  Media—a small broadcast public relations firm.  With a background that included 10 years of sales expertise for large corporations, he had the skill and expertise to interact with various sectors to establish business contacts and build cooperative relationships.  Duane was a conscientious worker but he also liked to have fun in the course of his work. In addition, Duane enjoyed music.  In his production studio at home, he would prepare music recordings from which he gained intrinsic pleasure. 

I recently had the privilege of meeting his parents and siblings, for the first time, at his wake.  Though I would have much rather met them at a different place in time and under more advantageous circumstances, I found them to be a warm-hearted and gracious family who were grieving the tragic loss of a son and brother.  It was immediately apparent to me that Duane had obtained his good qualities from a loving family.  The pain and impact of their loss was apparent despite their spiritual approach of acceptance and peace.

His family, his friends, and all others who knew him must soothe their sorrow and receive comfort by the recollection of fond memories, treasured moments, and good times shared.   My life was touched by his acquaintance, and my continued thoughts of him will be enriched by his enduring spirit for the love of life and the value of friendship.

The newly appointed police chief for Orlando Florida, Val Demings, is obviously the right pick for the top cop position in that city.  She seems to have it all—years of experience as a law enforcement officer and official, skill, expertise, academic background, street smarts, and an attitude of can do/will do.  She has been described by Mayor Buddy Dyer of Orlando as a “no-nonsense cop” who “knows how to get things done.”

A professional woman who has proven she can manage a diverse balancing act between her profession, her family, and her marriage to Orange County  Public Safety director and former Orlando Police Chief, Jerry Demings, along with numerous other activities she engages in, demonstrate both her capability and versatility.  Val Demings is focused, determined, and fearless.   Undoubtedly, she will lead the police department confidently and in the right direction, and she will do so with continued perseverance and passion.

Demings is the kind of person anyone would like to meet.  She is forthright and seems outgoing and flexible.  Her willingness to try new things lends credence to the idea that she probably is a good listener as well as a strong and proactive leader.  In the past, she has instructed office managers to hit the street and interact with the public.  She must be down to earth, obviously, because she learned to ride horses and likely is an ardent fan of the department’s vitally necessary horse-mounted unit.

Demings has what it takes and is where she ought to be.  Orlando residents, and visitors to the popular city, should relish the fact that the first female police chief in the city’s history is top notch and, in the sunshine state, she will make Orlando shine brightly in more ways than one.

--By Karen L. Bune

The appointment of former Metropolitan Police Chief, Charles H. Ramsey, as the new police commissioner of Philadelphia is Philly’s gain and the Washington, D. C. metro region’s major loss.  Ramsey, a highly seasoned, experienced, and astute law enforcement official has been in the business for 40 years, and he knows what to do and how to do it.  During his tenure in D. C., he was the best chief the city ever had.  He restored pride and integrity in D.C.’s Metropolitan Police Department.  Not only did he institute and upgrade technology, but he obtained proper and functioning equipment that was vitally needed for his officers to perform their duties effectively and efficiently.

Ramsey demonstrated he was a solid leader in all respects.  He proved he was a take charge type of chief, and he was not afraid to speak out and stand up for what was right.  He did not crumble under political pressure nor did he allow others to bully him into making unsound decisions or commit to improper actions.  Ramsey knew he was not in a popularity contest as the chief of police but was cognizant of the fact that his job was to secure the safety and security of those in the nation’s capitol city, and he did that in the most professional and productive way possible.

The challenges he confronted and the problems he solved in D. C. were a direct result of his proactive stance that included the implementation of various community policing strategies, specialized units, and even the advent of a horse-mounted patrol division.  By the time of his departure, the homicide rate in the city had been significantly reduced and cut almost in half.

Philadelphia’s Mayor-Elect, Michael Nutter is obviously a wise and practical politician.  His choice of Ramsey is likely one of the best decisions he will make as he moves into his new position.  Philadelphia’s police force is substantially larger than D. C.’s, but Ramsey possesses the necessary skills and expertise to handle a larger agency.  The problems associated with significant crime levels, criminal victimization, and the shooting of the agency’s own cops will be ones that Ramsey will tackle with fervor and determination.

At 57-years-old and delighted to be returning to his role as a city’s top cop, he admits he feels like a kid again and rightfully so.  He readily acknowledges that he “loves” policing so why should he not continue doing what he loves and doing what he does best?  The city of Philadelphia should embrace him with a very warm welcome and be grateful that they are getting the cream of the crop. 

By Karen L. Bune

The recent shooting death of a 14-year-old boy in the District of Columbia by a metropolitan police officer who claims the kid stole his mini-bike and fired gunshots at his personal vehicle, and the subsequent manner in which the incident has been handled, has stirred concern and controversy in the community, law enforcement circles, and among the press.  Though Mayor Adrian Fenty seemingly always want to have his finger on the pulse of what is happening in the District he has, in this instance, seemingly overstepped the boundaries of caution and sensibility.  Within a short time frame, he has held four press conferences— too many at the onset of an incident that requires critical and thorough investigation by law enforcement authorities.  He is attempting to be all things to all people too fast by an apparent effort to assuage the uproar generated in the community, the antagonism towards the police, and the impact on the victim’s family. 

The mayor’s immediate move to have the case rapidly turned over to federal authorities for investigation lends the impression that he possibly lacks confidence in his newly hand-picked police chief, Cathy Lanier, and the police department itself.  Though there are a number of factors that appear, on the surface, to be questionable about the actions that occurred and resulted in the tragic consequences of this shooting incident, no one should make preliminary assumptions without an objective, thorough, and comprehensive investigation and examination of evidence and witness accounts. 
A number of people share the opinion that the police officer, James Haskel, who had his mini-bike stolen, should not have taken the matter into his own hands by investigating the theft on his own. Former Metropolitan Police Chief, Charles H. Ramsey, accurately described the entire matter as a “bad situation” and made a correct assessment when he stated, “If you are emotionally involved in a situation, it’s always best to have someone on duty handle it.”
On the other hand, there are those who argue that a cop is on duty 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and if the officer decided to scout around his neighborhood looking for the bike, that is understandable.  Then there are those who maintain that once he saw the kid on his bike, he should have identified himself as a cop and also called for backup by his own department.  However, the officer contends that the kid immediately blasted gunshots at his vehicle, and he returned fire with fatal results.  Subsequently, his friend who was with him, also a colleague, disappeared and removed Haskel’s personal vehicle from the scene only to return a short time later without it.
All these actions leave room for questions, and there are plenty of them.  They must be resolved through the appropriate channels and a professional process.  Undoubtedly, the impact of it all is great, and the matter must be handled responsibly and with sensitivity.

Mayor Fenty’s latest press conference to which he invited the sisters of the slain victim to the podium was both a shock and a worry to law enforcement officials.  Moreover, it was not the wisest decision the mayor could make.  The severe impact of a family member’s sudden death is traumatic, and it is customary for survivors to need time to process the immediate effects of such astonishing news.  They don’t necessarily want or need to be confronted with the media attention nor do they need to be responding to questions and providing feedback to curious newshounds who are looking for a compelling story amidst their grief.  Perhaps it is Fenty’s way of letting the family knows he cares about what happens to the case involving their loved one and wants them to know pursuit of the truth will occur, but it is not the best way to do so.  If, at some future point, the investigation unravels a circumstance in which criminal charges are filed and a trial ensues, these very family members could be called to testify or provide a victim impact statement. Their current interaction with the press and any statements they make could be potentially problematic.

It is obvious that Mayor Fenty is trying to show he is an involved mayor, and he is attempting to set a tone of confidence for the public, the police, and the family of the victim, but the balancing act he has invoked is a complex and difficult one.  Though he can have a genuine interest to get to the truth of the matter, he must recognize that he cannot provide all things to all people.

 In a society that has been overly concerned with the aging process and one in which issues of vanity have predominated, some have been led to believe that a few skin wrinkles and graying hair lead to human obsolescence.  Therefore, it is heartening to learn of The American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) newly directed focus towards the younger 50 age group.  Age, as time is demonstrating, is not solely noted by chronological years but is more accurately depicted by an individual’s attitude and outlook on life.  Being in one’s 50’s is no longer considered “over the hill” but is, instead, a time for life change that can be both positive and fulfilling.

Historically, those who approached the age 50+ category honed in on the prospect of retirement and permanent unemployment.  There were married women who dreaded the day when their retired husbands would be constantly at home.  There were-- and still are-- men who felt that they were losing their virility and would seek out much younger women as companions to make them feel “young” again.  Of course, there were also the faithful women who thought they were losing their sex appeal and would jump on an opportunity, analogous to the movie, “The Graduate,” to play the role of Mrs. Robinson and respond to the ego inspiring attention of a pubescent male.

Undoubtedly, AARP is on the right track.  People today are more physically active, take better care of their health, and many are not retiring to sit home and do nothing.  A substantial number are continuing to work longer in their primary jobs. When they do retire, they may seek different employment fields and begin a totally new career path working well into their so-called “Golden Years.”  The days of simply sitting around to bide time, deteriorate, and wait for death to strike are over.

 For too long, people jumped on the bandwagon of false perception.  Attraction, passion, and love are still alive and well. The age bracket of the 50’s now comprises a renewed sense of self confidence and a continuing allure for the gusto of life.