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.



Need help procrastinating?
In defense of Wal-Mart
Today in the California grocery strike...
Another CNN insta-call: Arizona to Kerry
Republican Senate Debate
CNN calls Delaware and Missouri for Kerry
Exit Polling
MoveOn.org: Censure Bush


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

Thursday, February 05, 2004


Another drop left out of the bucket

The math of comparative advantage is compelling. If I can make either ten widgets or six whatsits in an hour, and you can make either five widgets or one whatsit in an hour, then both of us benefit if you trade me five widgets for two whatsits. So it seems like free trade agreements ought to be a good thing.

One reason that they aren't is that some comparative advantages exist only because many developing nations have egregious standards for the protection of workers and the environment. Moreover, many free trade agreements act as incentives for a further lowering of standards. So while the workers of developing nations make some gains in terms of increased economic well-being, these gains are offset by losses in other areas. And while citizens of developed nations make gains in terms of buying power, these gains are also offset by various losses, including the loss of working class jobs.

The upshot is that free trade agreements tend to create an uneven playing field, and tend to do it in a way that penalizes the lower classes of all signatories.

Still, the math is compelling. This has led free trade moderates to suggest that free trade agreements would be acceptable if they included provisions requiring all participatory nations to meet minimum standards for things like workplace safety, political freedom, and environmental responsibility.

The Bush Administration has paid lip service to this idea. They even pledged that CAFTA, the recently negotiated free trade agreement between the U.S. and the countries of Central America, would, "establish a cooperative program to improve labor laws and enforcement and build capacity of Central American nations to monitor and enforce labor rights." Talk is cheap. In their budget proposal the Bush Administration sets aside $18 million to fund international labor rights programs. This is an 82% drop from last year. (Source: Human Rights Watch)

This reminds me of something Rawls wrote. He was concerned with the conditions under which a well-ordered political community could persist across generations. Among the basic requirements, according to Rawls, is that citizens be reasonable. One condition of reasonableness, as Rawls understands it, is to be motivated to engage in social cooperation on mutually acceptable terms. Another condition is to recognize that, "many of our most important judgments are made under conditions where it is not to be expected that conscientious persons with full powers of reason, even after free discussion, will all arrive at the same conclusion."

Another way of putting this second condition is to say that reasonableness requires treating those you disagree with charitably. Rather than assuming them to be stupid, or evil, or dishonest, you should treat them with respect and assume that they have (what seem to be) good reasons for their views.

I think Rawls is right that this kind of reasonableness is a virtue, both of citizens and of political discourse. But the notorious problem with virtues is that they aren't worth much unless conditions are ripe for their effective exercise.

The Bush Administration expressed a willingness to incorporate requirements for more stringent labor standards in CAFTA. A free trade moderate employing the principle of charity should interpret this as evidence of a desire to find mutually acceptable terms of social cooperation. Until the funding is left behind.

There is room for reasonable disagreement about free trade, and about most of the issues that divide us. Unfortunately, we have somehow acquired a political class that is unable to muster the basic honesty required to make reasoned discussion possible.

This is the real crisis of values in America. While politicians launch investigations into Superbowl boobs and fret about the dissolution of the family they ignore the most fundamental threat to our democracy. And they have to, because the threat doesn't come from entertainers, and it doesn't come from unwed mothers, and it doesn't come from bearded lesbians, and it doesn't come from illegal immigrants. It doesn't come from any group they can marginalize and attack. It comes from us, and it comes from them.

+ - + - + main + - + - +