!?

Zwichenzug

an in-between move

Cool kids read The Bellman.

+=+=+=+=+


Don't read this blog!

I mean, thanks for dropping by my little corner of the blogospheric backwaters, but the blog you should be reading is The Bellman. The stuff I post there is much, much less likely to be imbued with dormitive powers.

+=+=+=+=+


Zwischenzug
[German, from zwischen, intermediate + zug, move

n.
Literally an "in-between move". A move in a tactical sequence is called a zwischenzug* when it does not relate directly to the tactical motif in operation. |source|


image copyright TWIC

From this position, black played a zwischenzug: 19…d5
Adams-Kasparov
(Linares 2002, 1-0)

+=+=+=+=+


about your blogger

David Rowland studies philosophy at the University of Illinois - Urbana / Champaign, where he's an active member of the Graduate Employees Organization. He used to play a lot of chess, but wasn't all that good. He has a blog. And email.

+=+=+=+=+


recent

Today's Wal-Mart reading
WMD Round-Up Yeeeeeeeee-Haaaaaah!!!!!
Let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay
Zwichenzug: Your spot for Wal-Mart bashing...
California Grocery Strike, continued
Operation 'We Don't Need No Stinkin' WMDs", contin...
Just because you're paranoid...
California Grocery Strike
Every man shall receive his own reward according t...
Zwichenzug media watch, international edition

+=+=+=+=+


error log


January 2004  
February 2004  
March 2004  
April 2004  
May 2004  
June 2004  
July 2004  
August 2004  
September 2004  
October 2004  
November 2004  
December 2004  
January 2005  
February 2005  
March 2005  
April 2005  
May 2005  
June 2005  
July 2005  
August 2005  
September 2005  
October 2005  
November 2005  
December 2005  


+=+=+=+=+


$zwichenzug$ sell-out zone

+=+=+=+=+


syndication

Atom!



+=+=+=+=+


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under
a Creative Commons License.

Union Label


Direct Action
Gets the Goods!


+=+=+=+=+


some folks I know

Mark Dilley
a daily dose of architecture
dailysoy
Hannah
funferal
Safety Neal
eripsa
January Girl
mimi jingcha
bleen
Rambleman
Washburn
Hop, Skip, Jump
E
ambivalent imbroglio
Brooke & Lian

+=+=+=+=+


some blogs I read

strip mining for whimsy
It's Matt's World
School of Blog
Saheli
Fall of the State
Dru Blood
Echidne of the Snakes
Colossal Waste of Bandwidth
Running from the Thought Police
Bionic Octopus

+=+=+=+=+


some philosoblogs

E.G.
Philosoraptor
Left2Right
Fake Barn Country
Freiheit und Wissen

+=+=+=+=+


some labor blogs

Confined Space
Unions-Firms-Markets
Working Life
CGEU
Dispatches From the Trenches
Labor Blog
LaborProf
Eric Lee

+=+=+=+=+


some A-list blogs

This Modern World
Discourse.net
Matthew Yglesias
pandagon
Andrew Sullivan
Political Animal
Majikthise
DeLong
The Volokh Conspiracy

+=+=+=+=+


some other links

Rule 33
Dictionary.com
This Week in Chess
Baseball-Reference.com
War Nerd
National Priorities Project
Bible Gateway
Internet Archive
maxdesign
A Weekly Dose of Architecture
Orsinal: Morning Sunshine
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
NegativWorldWideWebland
Safety Sign Builder
Get Your War On

+=+=+=+=+


some philosoblogging

Six views about reasons
Seidman on reflection and rationality
And another thing
Aspirin
Tiffany's argument for strong internalism
Internalism v. Externalism
What do internalists believe anyway?
Rationalism and internalism
The experimental method in philosophy
Advertising to children
On moral skepticism
A linguistic argument
Whorf
More on Williams
Williams on reasons
General and particular
Normativity and morality
Political intuitions
What it is, what it was, and what it shall be
Objectivity and morality
Thinking revolution
Factoid
Abortion and coercion
Moore on torture
On the phenomenology of deliberation
Even more Deliberation Day
more Deliberation Day
Deliberation Day run-down
He made a porch for the throne where he might judge, cont.
He made a porch for the throne where he might judge
Every shepherd is an abomination
Droppin' H-bombs
ad hominem

Thursday, January 29, 2004

 

"Mr. President, when did you first realize that you suffer from intelligence failure?"

As much as I've been railing against the Kay/Cheney talking points lately, I have to admit that there's something about that question that resonates.

(By the way, the Center for American Progress has put together a concise refutation of the Administration's 'intelligence failure' script. link)

John Kerry has a line he's been repeating over and over, and it seems to me to be exactly the way to attack the Bush Administration. Kerry says, "George Bush has run the most arrogant, inept, reckless and ideological foreign policy in the modern history of our country." Iowa / New Hampshire

The word 'inept' leaps out at me. If there's a policy area that you can point to and say, "This Administration handled that well," I don't know what it is. Even if you stick to the Administration's preferred script, the decision to invade Iraq looks like a bumbling failure -- an impression that only grows stronger as they continue to bungle the reconstruction.

But you don't have to stop with Iraq. How did 9/11 happen? Well, it certainly looks like one of the factors was that the Administration ignored the Clinton Administration's warnings that al Quaeda was a serious threat. What about the jobless recovery? That seems to have something to do with the Administration's choice to cut taxes rather than put together a realistic economic stimulus package. Last week Bush was pointing to Afghanistan as a nation building success story. But if that's what success looks like, then we're doing a better job in Iraq than I thought. The list goes on and on and on.

Calling the Bush Administration inept isn't just accurate, it's also good politics. Lots of Americans want to like George Bush. He seems like a good guy; he's jocular, religious, gregarious, the sort of guy you'd enjoy watching a ballgame with, or talking to about your crisis of faith. Call him a liar and people want to defend him. But an attack on somebody's competence isn't personal in the same way. We all know people who are nice enough, who we like, but who we just don't think would be capable of handling the Presidency. Attack Bush's competence and folks in the middle can take a look at the record and judge for themselves. And if they take a good look, they might not stay in the middle.

DeLong has a good riff that touches on this point: "Why do so many of us who worked so hard on economic policy for the Clinton administration, and who think of ourselves as mostly part of a sane and bipartisan center, find the Bush administration and its Republican congressional lapdogs so... disgusting, loathsome, contemptible? Why are we so bitter? After introspection, the answer for me at least as clear. We worked very hard for years to repair the damage that Ronald Reagan and company had done to America's fisc. We strained every nerve and muscle to find politically-possible and popularly-palatable ways to close the deficit, and put us in a position in which we can at least begin to think about the generational long-run problems of financing the retirement of the baby-boom generation and dealing with the rapidly-rising capabilities and costs of medicine. We saw a potential fiscal train wreck far off in the future, and didn't ignore it, didn't shrug our shoulders, didn't assume that it would be someone else's problem, but rolled up our sleeves and set to work. Then the Bush people come in. And in two and a half years they trash the place. They trash the place deliberately. They trash the place casually. They trash the place gleefully. They undo our work for no reason at all--just for the hell of it." link


+ - + - + main + - + - +