* Coturnix has a good post on the difference between an animal welfare movement and an 'animal rights' movement, as it is usually understood. I would put one or two things in slightly different terms (personally I'd use 'progressive' and 'reactionary' rather than 'liberal' and 'right-wing', because the latter code for so many more things than the former, not all of which are relevant; but the basic point is easy enough to grasp, however you may prefer to say it). See also his repost on the use of animals in research and teaching.
* "Thoughts from Kansas," one of the newer bloggers at ScienceBlogs, discusses the theological opposition between Fr. Oakes and certain ID supporters; and notes the misunderstandings of the latter.
* History Carnival #38 is up at "Frog in a Well -- Japan". I see with interest that there's a post on Saint-Pierre et Miquelon, Ralph Luker's tracing of the story usually called "Appointment in Samarra", and a summary of the history of science fiction. The History Carnival is always looking for hosts; if you are interested, see here for further information.
* The Philosophy of Kissing at "Per Caritatem" is must-read for those who like jokes about philosophers. It all does remind me, though, of a serious Scholastic philosophy of kissing. In one of his works (a commentary on the Song of Songs, I think), Thomas Bradwardine tells us, in his serious scholastic way, that every genuine kiss has three parts: a pressing of lips, a mingling of breath, and a union of souls. And, of course, since we're talking about the Song of Songs, he makes some theological point out of this that I have long since forgotten.
I have several posts coming down the pipeline, but I don't know how quickly I'll get them up; I accidentally cut my finger Friday, and while it's not a horrible cut, it's slowing my typing quite a bit. Posting may be light or uneven the next few days, depending on how quickly it heals (so far it is doing well).
ADDED LATER: John Wilkins has a nice acknowledgment of a post I wrote in July on a post he had written about design arguments. I do want to reiterate that my correction doesn't affect the main core of Wilkins's original argument; the only problem with the original post was that the basic argument was obscured by using Aquinas, who had different concerns. I still recommend the original post as a good discussion of basic issues about the concept 'design' as applied to the natural world.
