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.


[German, from zwischen, intermediate + zug, move

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
(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.



Foul men, foul deeds
Me and Sleepy had been playing clubs for a couple ...
The best scientific minds of my generation destroy...
I wish I owned USA Today
A General says what?
Attention Wal-Mart shoppers
In case you're still planning this evening's night...
Immigration Reform: a dialogue
More grocery strike coverage
Actual reporting from your crack Zwichenzug staff


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





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
Safety Neal
January Girl
mimi jingcha
Hop, Skip, Jump
ambivalent imbroglio
Brooke & Lian


some blogs I read

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


some philosoblogs

Fake Barn Country
Freiheit und Wissen


some labor blogs

Confined Space
Working Life
Dispatches From the Trenches
Labor Blog
Eric Lee


some A-list blogs

This Modern World
Matthew Yglesias
Andrew Sullivan
Political Animal
The Volokh Conspiracy


some other links

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


some philosoblogging

Six views about reasons
Seidman on reflection and rationality
And another thing
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
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
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

Monday, January 12, 2004


With his finger he wrote on the ground

Simplified, the Chomskian critique of American foreign policy has two elements. The first is that the United States mythologizes itself as the world's only moral state power, but that the way in which the U.S. exercises its power is not fundamentally different from the way other states have exercised their powers. The second part of the critique involves a commitment to what Chomsky calls Anarcho-Syndicalism, and boils down to the idea that any exercise of power over a person is necessarily objectionable.

Because I think hierarchies are inevitable I think the commitment to Anarcho-Syndicalism is a mistake. But Chomsky is dead on when he insists that American political discussion is distorted by a belief in American moral exceptionalism.

Case in point: New York Times Columnist Thomas Friedman. He is a bright guy who makes an effort to stay informed and who (unlike a certain Times columnist whose name rhymes with liar) sincerely tries to present a truthful analysis of world events. And yet, a belief in American moral exceptionalism pervades his work.

For example, in a recent column he wrote:

"The cold war ended the way it did because at some bedrock level we and the Soviets "agreed on what is shameful." And shame, more than any laws or police, is how a village, a society or a culture expresses approval and disapproval and applies restraints. But today, alas, there is no bedrock agreement on what is shameful, what is outside the boundary of a civilized world. Unlike the Soviet Union, the Islamist terrorists are neither a state subject to conventional deterrence or international rules, nor individuals deterred by the fear of death. And their home societies, in too many cases, have not stigmatized their acts as "shameful." In too many cases, their spiritual leaders have provided them with religious cover, and their local charities have provided them with money. That is why suicide bombing is spreading."

Some of what Friedman has to say is insightful. There is something to the idea that societies are defined and regulated by implicit agreements concerning the character of acceptable acts. More importantly, he is right that the current condition of global unrest is due, in part, to the fact that we have become a global community without achieving any kind of ethical concord, and that, ultimately, the unrest cannot be ended unless we are able to achieve some kind of common understanding of the ethical boundaries within which we are to live.

But Friedman also labors under the misapprehension that here in the West we have a shared ethical grounding that governs our actions. The plain fact is that our government routinely engages in actions which are utterly shameful on any reasonable standard. To cite a single example, Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen, was picked up by American officials while passing through an airport, shipped to Syria for torture by proxy, and released-uncharged-ten months later and forty pounds lighter. A nation which acts in this way cannot lecture from a position of presumed moral superiority.

That's not to say that Americans can't condemn suicide bombings. But the conversation in which they are condemned has to be one in which we also ask what it is we are doing to be hated so much. That is, it has to be a conversation wherein the United States and its detractors are granted equal respect, and where each side is expected to acknowledge both its own misdeeds and the legitimate concerns of the other. It has to be a conversation in which each party stands ready to modify its behavior in response to what is learned.

When we believe, as Friedman apparently does, that our government has comported itself well in the world, then we will not be able to understand the motivations and values of those who tilt against the United States. We will instead say that they have sacrificed rationality at the alter of religion, that they lack normal human fears and desires, and that they have somehow placed themselves outside of the ethical community. And when we say these things we have stopped the conversation before it starts.

+ - + - + main + - + - +