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.



A world renowned research institution
What side you on?
Fun for wonks
Haiti the sin, not the sinner
More on Haiti
US Backed Coup?
Re: a double dog dare
In case you were wondering...


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, March 04, 2004


As wax before the fire

Krauthammer is wringing his hands. He's worried that we're 'short-circuiting democracy' again.

Does that mean we're headed for another Florida debacle? No, no, no. Krauthammer is a conservative, and in Conservativeland all threats to democracy come from activist judges.

Uh, I mean, from activist judges they disagree with.

What upsets Krauthammer is the possibility that the courts will make an end-run around the national consensus opposing gay marriage. He's afraid that we're looking at another Roe v. Wade.

As it happens, I agree with conservatives that Roe was badly decided, though I disagree with their diagnosis. It's clear to me that a right to privacy is implicit in the set of rights explicitly guaranteed to citizens. But the status of a fetus, the question of whether it has rights that compete with a woman's right to privacy, is not a question of Constitutional interpretation.*

Notice the stark contrast here to the gay marriage debate. In that debate the issues have to do with things like whether the exclusion of same-sex relationships from legal definitions of marriage violates equal protection rights, and whether each state is obligated to honor the marriage contracts of all other states. Those are clearly Constitutional questions.

Did the Supreme Court, in deciding Roe the way it did, short-circuit the democratic process? In answering this question, it might seem relevant that the majority of Americans, then as now, favored the legalization of abortion. George Will certainly seems to think so.

He's wrong. So is Krauthammer. And so are all of the conservatives who rail against the crimes that activist judges supposedly perpetrate against democracy.

The simple fact, the fact that undermines all of these ridiculous whinings, is that our courts are democratic institutions. Most states elect some judges directly, a few states even elect justices to the State Supreme Court. How anyone could suggest that appointments to the federal bench are somehow insulated from the political process is beyond me.

Because the courts are democratic institutions, their rulings are part of the operation of democracy as it is practiced in the United States. While they might sometimes short-circuit pure majoritarianism, that's not the same thing as short-circuiting democracy.

None of this means, of course, that the courts don't make mistakes or that the courts can't malfunction in ways that are anti-democratic. But democracy isn't threatened by occasional mistakes. And it's instructive that anti-democratic malfunctions typically have to do with corruption.

When the courts make decisions that the citizenry disagrees with, this is frequently because the citizenry is being inconsistent -- as now when the majority of Americans support equal rights for all but oppose marriage for same-sex couples. If the citizenry wants to remain inconsistent, there are democratic recourses available. Sometimes, though, the reasoning of the courts points the way to a clearer understanding of the core democratic values that court-bashers claim to uphold.

* - Not that it's entirely clear what it would mean if it were found that the fetus were a bearer of rights. Some philosophers, notably Judith Jarvis Thomson, have forcefully argued that a woman's right to control her body trumps any claim a fetus might make, even if those claims are grounded in a fetal right to life.

+ - + - + main + - + - +