- Jessica Hoffman examines Western imperialist thought during her recent trip to Abu Dhabi:
My head is telling me that (as cultural critic Stephanie Abraham says) "to veil or not to veil" is not the question, but my body's holding on to some fears and rigid readings of a culture I don't deeply understand, and in the confusing space between my resistance to the gender oppressions I know and the culturally imperialist readings of Islamic culture I've been fed in these here United States, that body screamed "No!"
- The Advocate interviews Donald Hitchcock, the guy suing the DNC for firing him:
The fund-raisers in the Democratic Party feel that they can't be held accountable for defaming somebody, and they're exempt from consequences when they go out and slander people that used to work for the Democratic Party. This lawsuit's about holding them accountable and holding the Democratic Party to our values.
Queer weekend reader
- Rick Perlstein questions why Democratic politics don't reflect America's liberal majority as expressed in polling:
Here's a riddle: What's an "independent"? More and more, it's an American who holds positions we associate with Democrats but who refuses to call himself by the name. Why? Part of the reason is that people say to themselves, ;If only there was a party that thought like me--that was for harnessing the power of government to help the needy and protect the middle class; for reining in business excess; for fighting overseas threats through soft power instead of reckless force." But they don't find today's Democrats answering to the description.
- Ted Haggard outer Mike Jones tells more about his encounters with the good pastor:
Ted Haggard was a nice man. He was kind of quiet, had boyish looks. When I think about what he wrote when he resigned versus the way he was when we were together -- the way he wanted the room basically dark with only one little candle lit -- in his letter of apology to his congregation, he used the words "repulsive and dark" [to describe his gay sex encounters], and that explained a lot to me, actually.
- Scott LeMieux deconstructs conservative claims to "originalist" jurisprudence:
We are often informed (sometimes by the Justices themselves) that the Court's conservatives have a more legitimate jurisprudence because their "originalist" philosophy prevents them from simply making decisions that follow their political views. The affirmative action jurisprudence of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, however, makes clear that "originalism" can easily be stretched or even ignored entirely if it interferes with strongly held policy preferences.