For four eventful, and mostly happy years, I attended Archbishop Spalding High School , a coeducational Catholic school in Severn, Maryland.

I know that for most people, the idea of a Catholic school probably conjures images of intensely conservative classes, nuns smacking knuckles with rulers, and, of course, jailbait wandering around in schoolgirl uniforms.

Archbishop Spalding was very different from that stereotypical picture, though. Yes, we did wear uniforms and attend Mass on Catholic holy days, but, as a whole, the school was a tolerant, positive environment. Although we were required to take a religion class every semester, we were also encouraged to think for ourselves and debate openly on issues which concerned us. In fact, during my senior year, my religion class spent an entire unit learning about gender ambiguities and how they relate to sexual identity-pretty progressive stuff for any school, let alone a religious one.

That's why I'm so terribly ashamed to admit that Michael Peroutka fanatical Christian conservative, 2004 presidential candidate for the Constitution party, and general nut is now on the board of directors at Archbishop Spalding.

Among Peroutka's platforms are

Gay Marriage

"First, we do not support any sodomy-based policy, let alone marriage..."

Abortion

"As President, I would advocate a total ban on all abortions and a total ban on any federal funding of abortions, here or abroad."

And, my personal favorite :

Women in the Military

It is the God-commanded order that men are to fight for and protect women and their country. Women are not to fight for and protect men and their country. If I'm elected President, I will do everything within my power to see that women do not serve in the Armed Forces --- at all, anywhere, period.


Quite the convictions, as you can see.

So, how did Mr. Peroutka make it onto the Board of Directors at my once-moderate Catholic school? I'm fairly certain it has something to do with the fact that Mr. Peroutka holds an honored spot on the list of donors to Archbishop Spalding.

Archbishop Spalding has also conveniently chosen to ignore some of Mr. Peroutka's more un-Christian behavior-such as his somewhat bizarre interactions with his own family ( CityPaper profile on Michael Peroutka.

The whole affair has truly lowered the esteem in which I once held Archbishop Spalding. I am no longer particularly proud of the fact that I am an alumna, despite the fact that the time that I spent there included some of the most important formative years of my life.

It's simply another example of this insidious, intolerant, right-wing fanatacism seeping into places where it should never be allowed (Sam Brownback of the Helsinki Commission, anyone?).

I can't decide whether my alma mater is a lost cause, or if I should try to send a petition around my fellow alumni, asking for Peroutka's removal. What do you think?

The flurry of indignation over President Bush's proposal of signing over certain US shipping terminals to the United Arab Emirates is one of the more bipartisan reactions to a Presidential policy in recent memory. Certainly, the detractors of this policy raise valid points about national security:

The country was the home of two of the al Qaeda hijackers involved in the September 11, 2001, attacks, and money to fund the plot was passed through banks in Dubai.

CNN LINK

The administration's threat to veto any legislation that attempts to block the deal also reeks of the kind of disregard for public opinion that has become the hallmark of the Bush years.

Despite all of this, should the deal really to be regarded with such hostility and fear? The UAE is, after all, our closest regional ally, within the Middle East. I have to wonder whether or not much of the opposition comes from the fact that the country's name contains the word "Arab," one of the more politically charged monikers at present.

I'm sure that most of the justifications behind the deal are monetary ones. If it goes through, however, it could help to build stronger relations with the UAE. Let's face it, we need all the help we can get in the Middle East, and if the United States plays its political cards right and flaunts the deal as a sign of tolerance and solidarity, we might get just that.

That said, I'm still very conflicted about the whole thing myself. If the deal goes through, I'll be worried. If it doesn't, I'll probably still be worried. What do you think?

The mention of Denmark usually conjures images of that idealized sort of free-market socialism where office workers exchange friendly waves as they ride their bikes down immaculately clean streets, perhaps while drinking organic milk.

These past weeks, however, that image has rapidly shifted to one of Danes evacuating Islamic nations as protests rage over a series of twelve editorial cartoons depicting the prophet Mohammed (strictly prohibited in Islamic tradition), published in a Danish newspaper in January.

CNN .

The issue here is one that obviously goes deeper than a national faux pas. The Danes' slightly "bemused" reaction speaks to just how deep the chasm between the Islamic world and Europe truly is. The decision to print the cartoons in the first place is clearly one of cultural insensitivity, perhaps brought on by the utter homogenity and relative cultural isolation of Scandinavia. Denmark is, after all, 94% white, with 84% identifying as Lutheran-not exactly a hotbed of diversity. Link Add to that equation the fact that Denmark is notorious for its harsh immigration policy, which is designed to keep asylum-seekers to a minimum (link) and it's easy to construe that many Danes are, at best, suspicious of foreigners, and openly hostile at worst.

So now the question becomes whether or not the publication of the cartoons is defensible, even under the auspices of freedom of the press. It's fairly evident that the cartoons are indeed anti-Islamic, and that the outrage of the Muslim world is natural. Of course, the tendency towards expressing this anger by torching the offending nation's embassy is ridiculous, solves nothing, and demonstrates the danger inherent in any sort of fundamentalist zealotry.

That said, freedom of the press exists for a reason, and even unpopular, offensive editorial cartoons should be protected. Both parties are in the wrong here: the Danes for their unwillingness to accept the ramifications of a globalized economy and society (ie, multiculturalism), and the fundamentalists whose violent reaction shows more ignorance than any editorial cartoon ever could.