Umm, yea they know, and they don't care

A useful corrective to Maha's Digby moment would be this and this.

On Maps

Now that is funny! Thanks MapsforUs.org.

On Physicalism

Here is David Papineau at Philosophy Bites on Physicalism and the Mind/Body problem.

Chomsky on the Cold War II

Here is Chomsky on the Cold War II: The Iranian Containment!

Update: Here is a Raw Story report about a possible massive attack and here is Glenn's post on the rhetoric Bush has recently employed about Iran.

Update 2: Scott Horton at Harpers

Robert Ingersoll on "Republicanism"

While I have a link in my blog roll to my old blog, there are only 8 posts over there. If I would like anyone to read any of them, this one would be it.

Robert Ingersoll is an American figure everyone ought to know and have read (like Jefferson and Paine).

Tally: Week of Aug. 17-23

Received: 612 Published: 76

Most Popular Topic: The Bush Administration - 73
Opposed 70
Support 3

Second Most Popular Topic: Iraq war - 60

Letter on David Reinhard's: There are defeatists, and then there is Brian Baird

"There are defeatists, and then there is Brian Baird" was a commentary by David Reinhard about pretty much anyone who feels the Iraq Invasion has and can only fail and Representative Baird's recent trip to Iraq in which he finds both hope and a reason to stay forever.

Here was my letter:

In David Reinhard's latest absurdity ('There are defeatists, and then there is Brian Baird', Aug. 23), he convinces no one of the notion that he is either sorry for nor will refrain from "partisan name-calling". It is certainly not "defeatist" to recognize reality, as evidenced in the latest National Intelligence Estimate which notes that the "steep escalation of rates of violence has been checked for now" leaving Iraq with a best a flat rate of violence in which easily over 1500 Iraqi civilians are killed each month -- hooray! Since it is certain that US troops will kill more civilians, children among them, a "truth-telling simple descriptor" of David Reinhard and other 'succeedists' such as Baird would be: 'Child-killers'.

Michael Cohen still does not get it

After his run in with various blogs (here, here, and here) Michael wonders when exactly does he get to kill a bunch of other people?

He never mentions international law and mentions the UN in passing as one of those "multilateral" possibilities that justify aggression. It is left up to his commenters to bring this up.

I think Article 51 is unambiguous:

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

I think it is obvious that there must be an on-going/active attack. Not one that happened 6 years ago. Sorry, but 9/11 can not justify any current action -- such as, say, Obama's theories about Pakistan.

Dan Kervick comments, that Michael says he agrees with, does not fall within Article 51:

If my neighbor is shooting at my house, I am entitled to shoot back. If my neighbor goes out onto his lawn, loads his gun and takes aim at my house in a deliberate and aggressive manner, I am also entitled to shoot back. That's preemption: once it is reasonably clear that an attack is about to take place or is under preparation, I need not wait for the first blow to be struck.

The first sentence falls within Article 51. The second sentence is completely wrong. The UN and other treaties of the time were created with WWII in mind. State aggression outside of self-defense under an active attack is meant to be forbidden to states; and state aggression is designated as a war crime. All as a response to WWII.

Michael says:

... but we have to recognize that there may be times and places where it is appropriate and where America must defend its national security.

AND

... while also recognizing that in exceptional circumstances it may be necessary to act preemptively - say for example the takeover of Pakistan and its nukes by Islamic extremists.

This is the same sort of justification pro-torturists make.

And finally this:

Shoot first and ask questions later is not a good way to run a national security policy and frankly is out of mainstream of our nation's history.

Which Arthur has sufficiently (already) responded to (and this series).

I Support the Troops too!

A. Whitney Brown shows some love!