UPDATE: Oops, I missed one particular wack-job who claims the U.S. government is fabricating the grounds for attack–Ron Paul and his buddy Alex Jones. 

The U.N. inspectors have just left Syria and are on their way to report what they learned, there is speculation about what the United States will do, and I think it's important to talk about what we should do before we actually do it.

In my view the United States should not launch military strikes against Syria for the following reasons:

1. There is no legal authority to do so.

As antiwar activists argued correctly before Bush's invasion of Iraq, violations of international law do not justify unilateral military action.  If Syria has violated international law by gassing its own citizens, as seems likely, that still doesn't give us authority to attack Syria without a resolution by the Security Council. No resolution will be forthcoming because both Russia and China are certain to veto it, but that isn't a reason to sidestep the Security Council. Rather, it is testament to the power of international institutions. If we want to see international law enforced that must include the provisions of law that prohibit unilateral military attacks.

In addition, without Congressional action the administration would have no authority to wage war on a sovereign nation. It is debatable whether the constitutional grant of authority to declare war to the Congress has fallen into desuetude since World War II, but those of us who argued that Bush's invasion of Iraq without a formal declaration of war, even in the light of the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, cannot sit back and argue for a lesser standard for Obama.

2. The situation in Syria does not affect the strategic interests of the United States. Like Iraq in 2003, Assad has not attacked or threatened the United States, poses no threat to the United States, and there is no change, either for the better or the worse, that the outcome of the Syrian civil war will bring to the U.S. national interest.

3. We can't control or predict the outcome. 

 This should be an easy one, right? Let's look at world history since World War II. Pahlavi. Najibullah. Hussein. Qaddafi. Mubarak. The Taliban. Every one deservedly belonged on the list of the worst guys in the world in their time, and any sensible person concluded that they were utterly unfit to rule. Nevertheless, we should know by now that the aftermath of the toppling of the worst guy in the world doesn't necessarily make things better, either for their victims, the country, or the world. Even though people have been fond of saying “Assad must go”, do we really imagine that replacing the ally of Iran and Hezbollah with some collection of fanatics under the al Qaeda banner will be any better? Especially in the Middle East, as repugnant as it is to tolerate the vicious thugs that run things, the alternative is often even worse.

 4. We can't stop Assad from killing more civilians.

 I think the weakest antiwar argument is that the government didn't carry out the attack. Sure, there are arguments that it was not in the government's strategic interest, but there are intercepted communications and serious questions about whether the rebels have the technology to carry out such an attack. Still, even if we assume that the government was responsible for the attack, nothing we do is going to fix this and prevent Assad from doing it again. We don't even know if a “targeted”, “surgical” attack will prompt him to do more attacks.

 We can't bring back the people who were killed and a military strike won't prevent future slaughter, whether by unconventional or conventional weapons.

 Really, I don't think there is any strong or compelling argument that we should launch even a limited military attack on Syria. 

 And yet, some nuance is in order, and I encourage people to engage in nuance rather than hyperbole.  

For instance, Obama is not Bush and Syria is not Iraq. Many of us are unhappy with some of the things Obama has done, but anyone who is seriously disappointed with his performance wasn't paying attention. For the most part he has done what he promised he would do, from his promise to bring our troops home from Iraq (which we liked) to his promise to escalate in Afghanistan (which we didn't) to his promise to close Guantanamo and try terror suspects in the United States (tried but was blocked). Obama has governed as he ran: as a centrist who opposed the Iraq war and had a somewhat liberal domestic policy agenda.

Still, think back to 2003. It was clear beyond any doubt, even before the invasion, that the Bush administration was fabricating  evidence to support his predetermined decision to invade Iraq. Even the most cynical opponents of a military strike on Syria can't make even a credible case that the evidence presented by the administration is fabricated. Possibly incorrect or misinterpreted, sure, but not fabricated. From what I can tell, the main claims about lies come from the Syrian or Russian governments or from fringe groups like truthers or Larouche supporters. When we see evidence from someone credible, like the overwhelming evidence we had in 2003 about the yellowcake and aluminum tube lies we can talk about it again.

In addition, what is being proposed is not a massive, Iraq-style invasion, but a limited strike. I still think it's a bad idea, but claiming Obama is a bloodthirsty warmonger who is eager to invade, conquer, and occupy Syria does nothing but undermine your credibility.

Since Bush stole the 2000 election our politics have become incredibly polarized. Bush had no legitimacy and pretty much everything he did was not only wrong, but also malicious. That does not mean, though, that everything that someone in power does that we disagree with is both wrong and malicious.

So I'm opposed to an invasion, and even to a cruise missile attack, but if Obama does it I won't start thinking he's Hitler. 

Who knew that southern states would take the gift John Roberts handed them in June and move so quickly to start with their voter suppression efforts? (Okay, we all knew, and that was pretty much the point.)

The latest is something you really need to look at, involving some pretty outrageous parliamentary maneuvering between North Carolina governor McCrory and the two thugs he installed on the Watauga County board of elections to suppress the progressive (student, minority, you know the drill) vote.

The back story as nearly as I can make it out is that McCrory appointed two teabaggers to the three-member board and those two guys either cooked up a set of amendments or had them fed to them, to consolidate voting precincts, crack down on absentee voting, and even block public comment at board of elections meetings. Then, when they had all these amendments in place they kept Kathleen Campbell, the only Democrat on the board, from even seeing the proposals until they met to elect themselves chair and secretary and ram the amendments through.

(Apparently there are some issues about whether their pre-meeting consultation violated the state's open meetings law, and that may be subject to challenge.)

We've seen this kind of thing here in Vermont, and we know that when the majority acts unilaterally to crush its opposition it is essential to have a strong voice to stand up to them. 

The story is at Kos but there is a longer video here, and you should really watch it. From what I saw, Kathleen Campbell is another Wendy Davis.

Keep fighting, Kathleen and North Carolina Democrats! 

UPDATE: Sorry, see below for another portrait of police heroism. 

Another Taser killing by police.

 This time it was in Florida, and when the police caught an unarmed 19-year-old vandalizing private property they chased him and he, naturally, ran away. Because they couldn't tolerate someone armed with a can of spray paint being at large in the city they did what has become all too common: they shot him with their Taser and killed him.

Early reports demonstrate what we've been saying. While Taser proponents argue that most victims of Taser killings had some previously undetected medical condition that led to the death, the police never know if the person has such a medical condition. In this case the victim was young and apparently healthy, and nobody would have guessed by looking at him, that he was particularly vulnerable.  

And now he's dead.

Way to “Protect and Serve”, guys! 

It's not fresh news anymore, but the Oregon State Police are investigating an incident where thetroopers tased an eleven year old girl with autism who was walking naked along the side of the highway.

You won't be surprised to learn that the only non-police eyewitness contradicts the official story. I'd love to get a look at the dash cam recording, if there was one. 

Okay, I try to be open to the idea that Islam is not necessarily more oppressive of women than other religions (in other words, extremely, infuriatingly oppressive of women), but this is today's version of This Absolutely Takes the Fucking Cake.

The story is that a woman in Dubai, the United Arab Emirates, was raped. Unfortunately for her, she reported it to the police, so as a consequence she was prosecuted and sentenced to prison for eighteen months.

Bad enough, right? Like unimaginably bad. But it gets worse.

She doesn't have to go to prison for eighteen months. She's been released, her passport's been returned, and she gets to go home.

How is this worse? Because she gets to do all these things because she has been granted a pardon! A pardon for the crime of being raped!

Yes, that's right. A woman is raped, is discouraged from reporting it to the police, is eventually taken into custody and sentenced to prison, and the people who run the place think they can make it all better by granting her a pardon.

You commonly hear people say “There are no words,” and in this case I pretty much have to agree.

Once again Vermont's IBEW Local 300 has distinguished itself in opposition to progressive values.

You may remember a couple of years ago when the IBEW endorsed Republican candidate Brian Dubie for governor. The move was preceded by the clownish antics of the IBEW's representative to the Vermont Democratic Committee showing up at a meeting with a plastic knife sticking out of his back and he got him removed–or “voluntarily” retired–from his post on the State Committee. 

 Today it's not attacking the Democratic Party, it's defending the police officer who is now charged with shooting an unarmed man. Here's part of what I found on their Facebook page this morning:

 Law enforcement officers all across the state are obligated to protect and serve the communities for which they work. With the indictment of Corporal Nokes, officers are forced to protect and defend their own livelihoods first, not just from the perpetrator, but from a system where the leadership is unwilling to stand by them and support them for making split second decisions that save the lives of the community members, as well as their own. 

If you happen to be a reader who has some objection to the police shooting unarmed people maybe you want to go on over and let the IBEW know what you think. 

For me, I just think it's important to point out that prosecuting one person for an alleged crime is not by any means an attack on all law enforcement officers. 

More evidence of Wendy Davis's status as folk hero has emerged on Amazon.com, where the shoes she wore to filibuster have started to gather the kind of reviews previously accorded to the Three Wolf Moon t-shirt and the pink Bic pen.

 The shoe is the Mizuno Wave Rider 16 and it's made just for women. Take a look at what some of the satisfied customers are saying:

She's a real hero, so why don't you just go ahead and contribute to her campaign right here? That would be just great. 

UPDATE: Republican abortion vote fails. 

Not what I thought happenetd, but here's the report from Talking Points Memo:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/texas-abortion-bill-fails-after-challenge.php?ref=fpa 

As we saw a couple of years ago in Wisconsin, the Texas Senate President is ramming through a draconian anti-abortion bill by means of bogus parliamentary maneuvers, and the crowd in the gallery is refusing to sit still for it.

 We'll see if the demonstrators will recognize the end of the session or continue to sit in, which in Wisconsin is really what gave rise to the Occupy movement. 

UPDATE: The president has found that a third point of order was well founded. The question was whether the senator's comments were germane to the bill. She was discussing the impact of this new bill on Texas women in the context of other legislation that Texas has already passed that also restricts access to abortion.

 This is a blatantly partisan ruling, and has now been challenged from the floor, to tremenous cheers from the gallery.

My prediction, unfortunately, is that the Republican, anti-woman majority will uphold the chair and end the filibuster. 

You should load this page and start watching right now.

It's a debate in the Texas state senate, and a pro-choice senator, Wendy Davis, is attempting to sustain a filibuster through the scheduled end of their session tonight to block a vicious anti-choice bill. 

A lot of it has to do with the pecularities of the senate rules, which apparently provide that the speaker must stand on her own without leaning on anything, may not take a sip of water, may not leave for a bathroom break, and must confine her comments to what is germane to the bill.

For a parliamentarian this is intrinsically interesting, but what's more important is that here we have an individual state legislator doing everything she can to stand up to the nationwide Republican war on women.

She has hours yet to go and I don't know if she'll make it. She's already had two points of order sustained against her, and if another is sustained they can move to vote to cut off debate, but she appears to be pretty composed  and focussed, and she has allies who are doing what they can to help her.  

Go, Wendy! I admire her for standing up for this.

Did you see this? Outrageous!

This week Rolling Stone published an interview with Serena Williams, and she says some terrible things in it.

The biggest deal, and what has attracted the most notice, was her extended discourse blaming the victim in the Steubenville rape case.

Serena just shakes her head. “Do you think it was fair, what they got? They did something stupid, but I don't know. I'm not blaming the girl, but if you're a 16-year-old and you're drunk like that, your parents should teach you: don't take drinks from other people. She's 16, why was she that drunk where she doesn't remember? It could have been much worse. She's lucky. Obviously I don't know, maybe she wasn't a virgin, but she shouldn't have put herself in that position, unless they slipped her something, then that's different.”

Amazingly bad, especially for someone who holds herself out as a voice for women's rights, eh?

Don't worry, it gets worse. How? It gets worse because of what has been reported as her apology. I'll post the entire thing so you can decide how to think about it yourself:

What happened in Steubenville was a real shock for me. I was deeply saddened. For someone to be raped, and at only sixteen, is such a horrible tragedy! For both families involved – that of the rape victim and of the accused. I am currently reaching out to the girl’s family to let her know that I am deeply sorry for what was written in the Rolling Stone article. What was written – what I supposedly said – is insensitive and hurtful, and I by no means would say or insinuate that she was at all to blame.

Granted, she acknowledges that what happened to the victim was bad, which is a start, but she goes way downhill from there. First, she refers to the convicted rapists as “the accused”. Second, she posits that the suffering of the rapists is morally equivalent to the suffering of the victim. And finally, in three different ways, she tries to weasel out of what she did. As we know, an essential element of an apology is an admission that you did something wrong, but she fails to do this. First, she uses the passive voice (“what was written”) in the classic “mistakes were made” tradition of fake apologies. Second, she refers to the interview as “what I supposedly said”. The only way this statement makes any sense is if it is coupled with a denial that she said what she is quoted as saying, but she is too cowardly to go that far. If she really didn't say it, and Rolling Stone is lying about what she said, this would be a serious matter and she should be going all-out to attack Rolling Stone for lying about her, but it's telling that she never does that. Third, she says she “by no means would say or insinuate that [the victim] was at all to blame”. Of course, this is another lie, because that is exactly what she did. I've always kind of liked Serena Williams. She's a great player, and she seems to be pretty gracious about the fact that she's better than her older sister. Still, both her original statement and her fake apology fall far short of the standards that anyone should live up to.

I think it's worthy of note when someone who has done some really bad things makes a sincere apology, and we have an example of that today.

There's a group called Exodus International. It's a Christian group founded in 1976 that has provided some of the theological and ideological ammunition for the bogus outfits that claim to “cure” homosexuality. I can hardly conceive of the suffering that Exodus and groups like it have caused to people who were indoctrinated to hate themselves for being different.

I have to admit, this week we saw a serious, sincere, and meaningful apology from these people. I'm not kidding: they admitted they were wrong all along, they apologized for the suffering they caused, and they shut themselves down.

Take look at part of his apology, and then read the whole thing:

Please know that I am deeply sorry. I am sorry for the pain and hurt many of you have experienced. I am sorry that some of you spent years working through the shame and guilt you felt when your attractions didn’t change. I am sorry we promoted sexual orientation change efforts and reparative theories about sexual orientation that stigmatized parents.

It's hard to read this,and the rest of their post, and not believe that they're sincere. Plus, their action in shutting down the organization, at least as currently constituted, seems like a big, big deal.

For these reasons, the Board of Directors unanimously voted to close Exodus International and begin a separate ministry. “This is a new season of ministry, to a new generation,” said Chambers. “Our goals are to reduce fear (reducefear.org), and come alongside churches to become safe, welcoming, and mutually transforming communities.”

I'm not one of the people they hurt by their actions, so I'm in no position to accept the apology, but in times like these, when every politician's change of position on marriage equality, however tardy, is rightly welcomed into the movement, this change seems as big as the unprecedented swing in public opinion we've seen in the last ten years.