Checklist

Let’s check in on how the candidates in the Republican primary are reacting to the tragedy in France.

ü  Using it to attack gun control measures anywhere in the world.
ü  Using it to stir up anti-immigrant sentiment everywhere in the world.
ü  Trying to convince us that all two billion or so Muslims in the world are our enemies.
ü  Blaming it on Obama.
ü  Blaming it on Hillary.
ü  Strongly implying that it will happen here if a Democrat is elected president.
ü  Advocating for war against somebody, anybody.
ü  Basically attempting to use it to their personal advantage instead of expressing any sincere regret and honest offers of support.

Business as usual for modern-day Republicans:  trying their best to convince us that the world is out to get us and only they can protect us from it.  It wasn’t always like this.  But the days when there were some moderate, sensible, rational Republicans are gone, and it appears they’re not coming back.

I’m old enough to remember when Republicans were generally reluctant to send American troops abroad. Now that’s hard to imagine. Now they love to threaten war.  They seem to think it makes them appear tough.  Kind of like the weird little guy in the neighborhood who owns a pit bull.

If Republican politicians actually had to fight wars themselves, I suspect their attitude might be different, but that’s not the case.  Since most of the boots on the ground will be on the feet of individuals from the lower economic ranks, it’s a win-win from their point of view. Fewer takers means more for the makers.

Never mind that a nation can only truly go to war with another nation, not with a collection of individuals living in different countries among civilian populations, and that to effectively fight ISIS (or ISIL if you prefer) will require a long-term strategy of international cooperation, intelligence gathering and analysis, and judicious and often covert use of military and quasi-military force. 

Much easier to go to war with somebody.  It’s the epitome of Republican public policy: ineffective, counter-productive, wasteful, expensive, they and their friends can make money from it, and they can get away with not paying for it.  

There are no morals more relative than conservative morals, and no hypocrisy quite like conservative hypocrisy.

Black Lives Matter

To me, it’s self evident: black lives matter.  I don’t have any trouble saying it, or writing it.  Black lives matter.  And I mean it: black lives matter.  I don’t understand why so many have a problem with those three words, because saying that black lives matter in no way means that other lives don’t, or they matter less than black lives. It isn’t putting relative values on lives. Black lives matter. White lives matter.  All lives matter.  These statements are all true. It isn’t either/or.

But you don’t really have to say that white lives matter, or that male lives matter, or that cop lives matter, or that rich lives matter.  All those are understood.  In American society they are truisms, so obvious that it’s odd to even write them down.  Black lives matter, though, for many people seems to be  something different entirely.

Here’s a test to see if you are a racist.  Can you say black lives matter.  Just that, with no qualifiers.  No “Black lives matter, but no more than white lives.”  No “Black lives matter, but all lives matter.”   If you can’t say black lives matter and stop there, then you don’t believe that it's true, and you are a racist, and almost definitely a conservative, and probably a Republican.

There are no morals more relative than conservative morals, and no hypocrisy quite like conservative hypocrisy.