if I’m gonna watch blogs,

you’re gonna come with me

Hand in hand, hand in hand, hand in hand…

Argh, Internet access continues to be intermittent. But tomorrow I will bring you more than a blogwatch; for now, this is all I’ve got…

Disputations: Two good thoughts on voting pro-life? He also directed me to Flos Carmeli‘s excellent suggestion, which could serve as a wake-up call for some politicians or a gesture of support for others, and is, really, appropriate in all situations.

Oxblog: Josh Chafetz posts his political philosophy reading list, reminding me how much I need to read, sigh. Matthew Yglesias responds with a list of his own. Unsurprisingly, my interests are more reflected by Chafetz’s list, despite my utter lack of actually having read most of the books he recommends. But I was intrigued by Yglesias’s Henderson the Rain King-esque (“…So, in short, what’s the best way to live?”) statement, “If you ask me, there is actually only one big question in political theory: Is there a God?” I’d like him to elaborate on this one-liner (technically two lines, but the second one is false). Yglesias also floats the idea of a “blog novel.”

Unqualified Offerings: The US is the world’s designated driver (and that’s bad); excellent, gripping post illustrating the whole “make us a pack, not a herd” thing–really moving.

Volokhs and Their Unindicted Co-Conspirators: Excellent post distinguishing three kinds of judicial activism, of which only one bears a presumption of lousiness. Two years after their own ox got Bush v. Gore‘d, the Democrats have yet to come up with a coherent understanding of jurisprudence, although I hope crude attacks on “judicial activism” from the left can be transmuted into more nuanced and Constitution-supportive approaches. Maybe I’ll know what those approaches should look like once I finally get around to reading my father’s book. And: Is the government’s new spytool just what civil libertarians have been clamoring for?

Amy Welborn: What is the true role of the laity?