one thing i like about the current berezovsky brouhaha: berezovsky's argument is that putin's is "an illegeal regime" and thus that calling for the use of "force" in putin's ouster is "legal." meanwhile, the kremlin says that berezovsky's call to overthrow the russian government is "illegal." as if: these were the interesting questions, or even really make any sense in this context, or as if either of the parties really care what's legal and what's not. it's as if we've just learned to construct an argument in these terms, mechanically, even when law obviously has nothing to do with anything.