Don't Cry for Me, Syria

So what is it about children being shot by a mentally disturbed man, but not children being gassed or tortured to death, that provokes the waterworks? It comes down, I think, to agenda.

To recognize the horrific nature of what is happening to children and others in the Middle East (largely as a result of his own policies) would require him to actually do something about it. In the case of Syria, he would have to actually follow through on his “red line,” and take whatever steps are necessary to actually end the Assad regime. In the case of ISIS, it would mean actually defeating and destroying them, not occasional and largely ineffective airstrikes, due to concerns about civilian casualties. In both cases, it would involve “boots on the ground,” something he is loath to do, given his Nobel-worthy self image as someone elected not to win wars but to “end” them. To cry over child crucifixions would imply that it was an important issue to him, but clearly, based on his behavior, it is not.

Crying over school shootings, on the other hand, gives him moral authority (at least in his own mind) to do things he’s been wanting to do for years. He’s long been using the hitherto unknown “We can’t wait” and “Congress won’t act” clauses of the Constitution as the basis for his illegal executive orders. Now he has a new one. Now he’ll justify his unconstitutional and tyrannical behavior with the “It makes me sad and angry” clause. The tears were largely boob bait for his fans, who imagine that there is such a thing as a “gun-show” or “Internet” “loophole” for purchasing guns. His “executive actions” won’t prevent a single gun death, but they do reveal what is important to him, even as the Middle East, including its children, continues to burn.