!?

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

Listening to the commission...
Cursed be the deceiver
Google
You talkin' to me?
Zwichenzug culture watch, NCAA Tournament edition
They made me the keeper of the vineyards
Transit strike blogs
An indirect citation
Holding Zone


+=+=+=+=+


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

Wednesday, March 24, 2004

 

Follow up

In a post yesterday I took the news media to task for misrepresenting some of the things Joe Biden said on ABC's This Week last Sunday. My criticism was based largely on my memory of what Biden had said. Later, I remembered that as a fully bonded graduate student I have access to LexisNexis. So I went and dug up the transcript. Here's the core of the critique I remembered:

...the fundamental division in this administration is Paul Wolfowitz's view that you cannot have an international terrorist organization that is coordinated unless it's state sponsored and the other view held by Powell and others say, no, you can have such an organization.
---
...they mean state sponsorship as an individual head of state who is sponsoring this. They don't mean that making, accommodating like the Saudis did, accommodating like Taliban did, accommodating like, like Iran did to some extent. Accommodating is not what they mean by sponsorship. My discussions with them as then as chairman of the committee was this is a specific thing where you have Saddam Hussein saying, look, I'm with you. Here's the deal. Let's work this out together. That's what they mean by sponsorship.

That's pretty clear. There's just one problem for my analysis: Biden's apologetic occurred much later in the show. Here's that quote in full:

BIDEN: Can I say one more thing? I think it is unfair to blame the president for the spread of terror and the diffuseness of it. Even if he had followed the advice of me and many other people, I still think the same thing would have happened. I think Iraq is another problem that's almost distinct and is sapping our energies and sapping our, and we did it all wrong in my view, but I think, I want to make it clear I do not believe because we went to Iraq this is the reason why this organization is starting to morph.

Does this get the press off the hook? It might depend on what you think Clarke's core allegations are. If you think that Clarke is mainly saying that there's a correlation between the invasion of Iraq and a subsequent rise in terrorist attacks, then using Biden's quote to defend the president is fair. But look at how the quote is situated in USA Today:

"Rumsfeld said there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan. And there are lots of good targets in Iraq," Clarke said on Sunday's 60 Minutes. "I said, 'Well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with it.' "

The White House defended the consideration of a potential Iraq link. "Given Iraq's past support of terror it would have been irresponsible not to ask if Iraq had any involvement in the attack," it said.

Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., said Sunday on ABC's This Week that while he has been critical of Bush policies on Iraq, "I think it's unfair to blame the president for the spread of terror and the diffuseness of it."

At best, the quote is a non sequitor. But it's clearly placed in such a way as to make it seem relevant to 9-11 rather than 3-11. In fact, the USA Today article doesn't mention the idea that the invasion of Iraq has created a breeding ground for Islamic fundamentalism. So I'll stick with my claim that leaving out the rest of what Biden had to say constitutes a serious misrepresentation.

The Guardian fares better. Their use of the quote comes a few paragraphs after this:

"Nothing America could have done would have provided al-Qaida and its new generation of cloned groups a better recruitment device than our unprovoked invasion of an oil-rich Arab country,'' Clarke wrote.

Clarke added: "One shudders to think what additional errors (Bush) will make in the next four years to strengthen the al-Qaida follow-ons: attacking Syria or Iran, undermining the Saudi regime without a plan for a successor state?''

Biden's quote is a response to this charge. The only problem is that the Guardian's article buries Biden's remark below two paragraphs of Lieberman defending the Bush Administration's focus on Iraq in the immediate aftermath of 9/11.


+ - + - + main + - + - +