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.



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

Saturday, March 13, 2004


If you read this post, the terrorists will have won

.jasonblog. doesn't think we're at war. Nobody who thinks we're not at war is qualified to be President. Hence, .jasonblog. is not qualified to be President. I'm also unqualified for the office. Once again, the world is made safer by a syllogism.

.jasonblog. argues, and I tend to agree, that the war metaphor doesn't map very well onto the struggle against terrorism. The enemies aren't well enough defined, it isn't clear what could count as victory, and, worst of all, the invocation of the language of war is used to legitimize calls for national unity behind policies that, otherwise, would be seen as divisive and unwise.

But if not war, what?

.jasonblog. has this to say:
We may be able to (and we should!) thwart specific terrorist groups, but they will always exist in some form or another. Terrorism is not a nation which can ultimately surrender in the face of our incredible military might. Terrorism is a crime in which small groups of individuals can engage. [.jasonblog.]

One of the ideas here is that fighting terrorism is better understood as police work than as a military action. But there is a second idea, the idea that terrorism is somehow inevitable. You might say that the terrorists, like the poor, will always be with us.

Why should this be so? Consider this passage from a right-leaning blog:

Bombings, assassinations, terrorist acts - the only folks who use them are those who realize that their desires cannot be achieved by any rational political process. And they don't seem to realize that their their actions shove people even further away from the acceptance of their stance - if it doesn't piss them off enough to go on the offensive and end the threat in a permanent fashion in the first place. [milblog]

I think milblog is half-right. The motivation to engage in terrorism is tied to a belief that one's political ends can't be achieved through normal channels. But I think that milblog is also claiming that the reason that those political ends can't be achieved through 'any rational political process' is because the ends themselves aren't choiceworthy.

This is sometimes true. The Unabomber's radical ludditism wasn't going to be chosen, and in that light his project of destroying the world's technological infrastructure makes a certain screwy kind of sense. The same goes for Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols. There are more than a few terrorists like them, terrorists who are best understood as nutball political reformers. As .jasonblog. suggests, those folks will always be with us.

But I don't think that this analysis generalizes to explain all or even most terrorism. Whether the bombers themselves are nutball political reformers, the environments which tend to produce terrorists are those in which large populations are denied a voice in the political process. Understood in this way, terrorism is, as much as anything, a plea for recognition.

George Bush is fond of saying that the terrorists hate us because we are a democracy, because we are committed to value pluralism. Even leaving aside the obvious hypocrisy, this isn't a credible explanation. It assigns to terrorists an irrational hatred that renders them inhuman, silencing any discussion of their real grievances -- or, which is more important, of the real grievances of the populations from which the terrorists emerged.

The fact is that the United States wields tremendous power in the world. Decisions made by elites in the United States affect the lives of people everywhere. As helpless as American voters feel in the face of our political system, at least we know that our government is responsive to popular pressure from us.

American politicians talk a good game about democracy, but American foreign policy consistently pursues the goal of increasing the United States' ability to behave autonomously. If we really believed in democracy, we'd try to strengthen international organizations even if it meant sacrificing some part of our sovereignty. Instead, we constantly undercut those kinds of institutions.

I thought this was the lesson of 9-11. I thought the American people would see that they couldn't afford to ignore the effects of American power. Guess I was wrong.

+ - + - + main + - + - +