“I think all bullets should cost five thousand dollars…..if a bullet cost five thousand dollars there would be no more innocent bystanders. ” — Chris Rock
W O R D S O F W I S D O M T O T H E T R O O P S
Are you beginning to finally accept the undocumented fact that the line between real life and comedy is beginning to blur to the point that Donald Trump’s choice for chief strategist in the White House, Steve Bannon is slowly but surely converting the once serious business conducted in that sacred place into a theater of the absurd and morphing the president into a world-class buffoon?
Taking care of business for the prez these days involves sitting in your pajamas, watching a lot of television news and then Tweeting a cascade of tweets meant not to instruct but intimidate and silence his negative critics.
Mr T. only accepts good positive news about himself. (1) He is a great president; (2) He is a wonderful human being; (3) He is talented above reproach;and (4) The country loves and admire his unique greatness.
But the Bannon scenario converts the stage into the following sitcoms: (1) The Wonder Years; (2) All in the Family; (3) Welcome Back Kotter; and (4) Father Knows Best. All were classic television shows but all offered a point of view of right and wrong in a less dangerous time.
The video offered at the start of this article is a scene from the Andy Griffith show. His over eager deputy Barney Fife ( portrayed by Don Knotts) is giving the men a pep talk about security. Barney’s desire to make a “big decision” is always held in check by his boss Sheriff Taylor (Andy Griffith).
You also have to note that Barney has been told to keep one bullet in his shirt pocket and use it ONLY in an extreme situation of life and death or public threat to safety.
If we focus our present day concerns about border security and the wall meant to keep “bad dudes” from Mexico out of the country we can appreciate the fact that a gung-ho attitude and misplaced enthusiasms can create international incidents and legal misunderstandings.
With the erection of the wall (fence) comes shared responsibilities and concerns. There was an incident a while back where an American border security official on American soil shot and killed a Mexican teenager who was standing on Mexican soil on the other side of the border.
Parents are well aware that teenagers wherever they reside are rebellious and at times let off a bit of steam by throwing rocks at things ( people included). The question of using lethal force to dissuade such behavior should be placed under serious scrutiny and consideration before more incidents of this type occur.
Consider what might happen if an American teen was guilty of a similar offence and was shot dead by Mexican border security guards. Would there be a public outrage over the incident and would the parents of the youth seek legal remedy in Mexican courts to prosecute the guilty party?
Currently the parents of the Mexican teen are seeking such legal remedy through the American judicial system. Their plight is this: they seek justice in a land that is not their homeland. Their situation creates future dilemmas for the courts and international relations between Mexico and the United States.
Why not use “rubber bullets” or Taser to quell such behavior? Is there always the need to shoot to kill as a means to put down this type of disobedience?
The construction of the wall should go beyond mere physical constraints and start to concern itself with the creation and implementation of policies and procedures meant to create harmony and understanding between the two countries.
You have to realize that in the real world “what goes around, comes around.” — gc