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.



If you read this post, the terrorists will have wo...
Tiger in my tank
Light posting this week?
Backroom shenanigans
Changing the subject
Don't follow this link
Zwichenzug Culture Watch is on hiatus...
Land of ahhhhs
Know which way the wind blows
As wax before the fire


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, March 15, 2004


Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit

The debate around the Spanish train bombings is reminding me of what it felt like on September 11 and for weeks and months afterward. I'm more or less a pacifist, but I was consumed with bloodlust for several days, and continue to feel the effects today. If George Bush had decided to nuke Saudi Arabia on September 12, I would have watched the mushroom clouds billow on my TV, nodded my head, and said, "that's about right."

I don't know if terrorists are themselves insane, but I do know that their attacks create a kind of madness. The world was crazy enough before; now it's certifiable.

One of the things that made those attacks tragic was the utter impossibility that the grievances which spurred them would be furthered in any way. Could Mohammad Atta really have thought that flying a plane into the World Trade Center would make the United States less likely to throw its weight around in the Muslim world? If he did, it was one of the greatest miscalculations in history.

There can be no doubt that there will be other terrorist strikes on the United States. And you can be sure that when they come our gorge will rise and we will again be driven towards berserk attacks and questionable policies.

So it seems especially important now, in this moment of relative calm, to ask what can be done about the roots of terrorism. Some on the right may be content to assume that terrorists are just crazy, that they have no legitimate grievances. I'm not so sure. But even lefties might be reluctant to, so to speak, reward terrorists by addressing their concerns. Consider:

Evidence has also been piling up that it really was al-Qaeda behind the bombings, not ETA. So another possibility is that the voters (or at least some of them) were upset that Aznar's support for the Iraq war was responsible for al-Qaeda targeting Spain, which seems to be the theme of this Washington Post story. This would be a considerable victory for al-Qaeda and would reflect very poorly indeed on the Spanish electorate. It also doesn't smell right to me. [calpundit]

The worry here is that:

The goal of terrorism is to affect public opinion and to scare people into not opposing the terrorists' aims. If (if!) the Spanish electorate was punishing Aznar solely because they perceived his actions as being anti-terrorist enough to provoke an al-Qaeda attack, the terrorists have accomplished their goal: the Spanish public has shown that if they are attacked they will vote against a politician who strongly opposed the terrorists. [calpundit]

If you believe that some terrorists are sometimes responding to real grievances, then there is a serious dilemma here. The problem in those cases is that the terrorist is trying to get you to do something you ought to do anyway, but is using impermissible means to get you to do it. There is a worry that if you respond to the terrorists' grievances you will be, at the same time, legitimizing the means that they used. At the very least, you show those means to be effective.

The simple solution is to deny that the obligations are in tension. Consider the Spanish case. If you believe, as I do, that the invasion of Iraq was seriously immoral, then you should also believe that Spain ought not to support it, and so ought to withdraw its troops. Although this is what the bombers sought, it's okay to endorse it as long as your motivation isn't fear of terrorist reprisals. Combine this with a commitment to pursue terrorists and the problem is solved, right?

Well, no. Motivations are fickle things, and are difficult to detect under the best of circumstances. Besides, we're talking about policies, not people. Even if we knew what motivated people, policies aren't the sorts of things that have motivations.

So there isn't a simple answer. When it comes down to it, we have to look at particular cases and evaluate them on their individual merits. Sometimes the fact that terrorism has been used in support of an end will be enough to vacate our obligation to pursue that end. Sometimes it won't.

This much seems clear: the problem arises because of a previous failure. That is, real grievances were left unattended and real obligations were left unfulfilled. But I've already said my piece about that.

+ - + - + main + - + - +