Ahh, the World Wide Web. It’s a marvel of modern technology, to be sure. And like the steam engine and the jet engine before it, the Web-based search engine has allowed man to explore the vast reaches of the world around him–and the many worlds beyond.

Furthermore–ah, forget it. All I wanted to say was OMG CHECK OUT THIS CRAZY PARKING JOB OUTSIDE MY GYM!!!!12$@!~

Nice Job, Jerk Outside My Gym!

Because, why render just one handicap parking spot useless when you can screw with both?

Parking. FAIL!!!

House and Senate leaders introduced legislation yesterday that would establish a federal ban on bisphenol A (or BPA, a toxic chemical linked to heart disease and diabetes) in all food and beverage containers.

Click to view a NOVA audio slide show I conducted with BPA expert Dana Dolinoy

This move came just one day after Sunoco, a gas and chemical company, announced that it is now refusing to sell BPA-containing containers meant to store food and liquids for children younger than 3. The company told investors that it cannot be certain of the chemical compound’s safety. Playtex, Gerber and four other baby-bottle manufacturers have also announced that they will stop using BPA in bottles.

The quest to ban BPA is nothing new. San Francisco lawmakers proposed barring the product in children’s producs in 2006, and while they eventually backed down, their efforts have inspired similar proposals in California, Hawaii, Washington and Oregon. Canada banned BPA nationwide in October.

But we hear mixed messages about dangerous chemicals all the time. Sometimes, one group of scientists will tell us that something we’ve been eating/drinking/standing near will kill us, while another group encourages further exposure! Remember all of the drama surrounding the cholesterol in our eggs? And don’t even get me started on this pro-corn-syrup campaign. Suffice it to say, I think it’s misleading.

So what is it about BPA that we know makes it so harmful? Last year, I interviewed Duke University scientist Dana Dolinoy about her research on the chemical and its effects. Click the image above (or here) to watch an audio slide show I created showing what her team has found so far.

The headline says it all. My multimedia journalism student, Ashlie Anctil, is streaming live from spring break at Walt Disney World. The show begins at 3:45 p.m., EST.

Online TV Shows by Ustream

In case you haven’t heard, the members of U2 are taking cues from The Beatles these days and putting on “secret” concerts. Bono and the gang played one show last night at Davis Square’s Somerville Theatre, a mere ten-minute walk from my home and one of the tiniest non-bar venues the band could have chosen for this occasion. Were it not for the internet, I suspect the event would also have been just as “low key” as the later Beatles shows were.

Justin Meisinger, a teaching assistant for the JO540 New Media discussion section, reported on the concert for CNN’s citizen journalism service, iReport. The report (as well as an interview with Meisinger) eventually found its way to Headline News. You can watch the segment below:

Thanks to my colleague Steve Garfield for putting this video online.

I’ve learned several surprising things in the two days since asking, “What’s so appealing about Twitter?” Among them:

1. Lots of celebrities use Twitter and if you follow enough of them, some will eventually start following you back. This is the case with Yoko Ono, who not only supposedly reads my Tweets now but who has also sent me a direct message via the site. Now, I’m almost positive she uses a third-party site to auto-contact all of her followers–but she also sent along another, more special note just for me. Being the huge Beatles fan that I am, the experience of hearing from John Lennon’s widow has left me feeling a little star-struck. I’ll admit I’m a little embarrassed by that.
   If you’re interested, you can search the Web for reliable lists of celebrity Twitterers, but some of my favorites are Shaquille O’Neal, Virgin Group Chairman Richard Branson and, of course, the truly amazing John Cleese.
2. Experienced Twitterers can come up with really clever ways to say a lot while staying within the meager 140-character limit. That might not sound too impressive to some of you social-networking veterans who have mastered succinctness in your status messages, but if you’re a journalist, you’ll understand that brevity–effective brevity–is nothing less than a fine art. There is a reason they call it “the soul of wit.” Twitter even has awards for the best “short content” creators.
   There are, of course, some Twitterers who haven’t fully embraced the concept of brevity just yet. If 140 characters isn’t enough for them, they’ll just continue their message in a second, third, fourth or even fifth post. Yes, I’m looking at you, Dr. Drew.
3. Congress Tweets. And texts. And chats. And… does pretty much everything with their phones except take notes on important events? Here’s an excerpt from the The Washington Post’s article on what, exactly, our leaders were doing during President Barack Obama’s address to Congress last night:

President Obama spoke of economic calamity and war last night in that solemn rite of democracy, the address to the joint session of Congress. And lawmakers watched him with the dignity Americans have come to expect of their leaders: They whipped out their BlackBerrys and began sending text messages like high school kids bored in math class.

“One doesn’t want to sound snarky, but it is nice not to see Cheney up there,” Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) announced as Obama entered the chamber.

“I did big wooohoo for Justice Ginsberg,” Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) broadcast, misspelling the name of the ailing Supreme Court justice. McCaskill could be seen applauding with BlackBerry in one hand.

“Capt Sully is here — awesome!” announced Rep. John Culberson (R-Tex.), spotting the US Airways pilot in the gallery.

Then there was Rep. Joe Barton (R-Tex.), in whose name this text message was sent at about the time the president spoke of the need to pull the country together: “Aggie basketball game is about to start on espn2 for those of you that aren’t going to bother watching pelosi smirk for the next hour.” A few minutes later, another message came through: “Disregard that last Tweet from a staffer.”

Wow. Seriously? My students pay far better attention in class! And as special as I think each and every one of their smiling faces happens to be, none of these students is ever going to have the effect on my taxes, bank account and general livelihood that Congress will.

Do we need to start confiscating their cell phones?

A few months back, I downloaded a few Twitter applications for my iPhone. Yes, more than one. I do that a lot with (free) apps since it’s the only way I can figure out which ones are right for me. When you use as many Web tools as I do (as often as I do) speed and usability become paramount.

The problem is, I never bothered using any of them. I’ve tried to get into Twitter, but micro-blogging has never really appealed to me–well, until now, anyway.

Long story short, I’ve recently come to accept two important facts of internet life:

1. Twitter isn’t the passing fad I thought it would be. To the contrary, it’s still gaining in popularity more than 2 years after its release. According to a February ‘09 report from Web traffic analysis site Compete.com, Twitter is now the third most popular social networking site behind Facebook and MySpace.
2. Twitter is a symbol how internet users are now essentially online all the time. Smart phones and WiFi have really changed where we connect, when we do it, and how often we can do it. We can both have lives and yet stay in constant connection with the Web and our peers, which is a huge shift from just a couple of years ago. Sure people still have their stereotypes: To a lot of folks, if you’re online, you must be at your computer in your mom’s basement, drinking a 2-liter Mt. Dew and arguing with strangers over which “World of Warcraft” characters are the coolest. But regardless of stereotypes, things are really changing. Look at teenagers: Even the cool kids are always texting, Facebooking, Twittering, etc.

As a self-respecting multimedia journalist, I know that I should accept Twitter as the increasingly popular tool that it is. Yet it’s that journalistic part of me that really needs to decipher what’s behind the popularity of this whole micro-blogging thing. Both Facebook and MySpace offer “status update” tools in addition to myriad cool features that Twitter doesn’t have. So why do we Twitter?

While even Twitter CEO Evan Williams can’t answer that question (as he’s stated in multiple interviews) perhaps the Times of London can. Just yesterday the Times published an article in which they asked several experts about the Twitter phenomenon. The conclusion was this: We Tweet because we have an underdeveloped sense of the self. Ouch.

From the article:

The clinical psychologist Oliver James has his reservations. ‘Twittering stems from a lack of identity. It’s a constant update of who you are, what you are, where you are. Nobody would Twitter if they had a strong sense of identity.’

‘We are the most narcissistic age ever,’ agrees Dr David Lewis, a cognitive neuropsychologist and director of research based at the University of Sussex. ‘Using Twitter suggests a level of insecurity whereby, unless people recognise you, you cease to exist. It may stave off insecurity in the short term, but it won’t cure it.’

For Alain de Botton, author of Status Anxiety and the forthcoming The Pleasures and Sorrows of Work, Twitter represents ‘a way of making sure you are permanently connected to somebody and somebody is permanently connected to you, proving that you are alive. It’s like when a parent goes into a child’s room to check the child is still breathing. It is a giant baby monitor.’

Those are some pretty strong accusations. But what do you think? Are those of us who Tweet or update our statuses on Facebook and MySpace narcissistic? Are we insecure? Do we need validation?

For me… I just think it’s fun. No harm, no foul. But what do you think? Are we truly just a bunch of big, fearful, attention-seeking babies?

Let me know. And while you’re at it, follow me (and my lacking sense of self) on Twitter. You can do that at right.

This week, my students are learning the importance of storing data on maps. Not only do maps offer readers additional visual entry points into Web content, but they can also make mundane or unwieldy data interesting.

If I gave you a chart showing what Twitter users tweeted about during the Super Bowl, what would you learn? That Cardinals fans were talking about the Cardinals and Steelers fans about the Steelers? That “Springsteen” overtook both teams as the most commonly tweeted word during halftime?

Sure, I could tell you about that. But it would break one of the cardinal most important rules of multimedia journalism: “Show. Don’t tell.” (Sure, this phrase exists in fiction writing as well, but the meaning here is much more, well, literal–sorry, that was one pun I couldn’t escape.)

If you don’t know what I mean, visit the New York Times’ Web site and check out their Super Bowl Twitter map and time line. They’ve really got the “Show. Don’t tell” mantra down. Try clicking the links at left (emoticons, ad talk, etc.), hit “play” on the time line, and then take note of how much you’ve learned in how little time.

Thanks to Steve Garfield for pointing me toward this link.

I’m neither the first journalist nor the first blogger to reflect upon our nation’s past with an eye toward her future. To say that tomorrow’s inauguration will mark an important day in our history is like saying the sun will rise and water will flow. The importance here is obvious.

Regardless of whether you (my readers) support President-elect Barack Obama’s ideas and goals, I suspect you all understand their significance.

You see, my generation never had a Jack Kennedy. We barely had a Ronald Reagan. By the time we came of age, Bill Clinton’s philandering was old news, and any respect for the office of President ceased to exist when journalists started vying for book deals. As for patriotism, we were too young to appreciate the nationalistic effects of the Cold War. Sure, we’ve got textbooks, archived footage and even the Rocky movies to show us how things used to be–for better or worse–but it’s not the same. Even the American solidarity we saw following the September 2001 terrorist attacks quickly faltered as we focused our hatred onto the Middle East, almost as if the entire region swarmed with enemy combatants.

Growing up in the early ’90s, bands like Nirvana told us to be apathetic. As the decade continued, television and films said that we should be sarcastic and condescending toward anyone with a positive outlook on life. The naught years told us to be excessive–to party hard, revive the yuppie spirit, and to first and foremost look out for ourselves.

I didn’t buy into it, and neither did my friends. And now it seems the tides might turn in our favor. “Hope” is no longer an idea that inspires childish snickering. People seem to have regained their optimism.

Perhaps it’s a pipe dream, but maybe tomorrow will mark the day when Americans started looking out for each other again. It’ll be a long road… but do you think we can do it?

“Yes We Can”

The artist Will I Am created the above video and song from Barack Obama’s speech at the New Hampshire primary. You can watch the speech here. If you’d rather read the entire transcript, click here.

The National Weather Service (NWS) reports that “arctic blasts” will hit Boston this weekend. Is it just me, or is meteorological terminology super scary this winter? “Arctic blast” sounds more like a video game villain’s special power than it does a weather condition.

They might as well say something like: “This weekend, you should look out for periods of white death falling from the sky, followed by murder pellets. If you’re walking or driving, be careful–the sidewalks and pavement are covered in slippery demise.”

Since I had the great pleasure of walking all over the city today, I thought it might be interesting see how temperatures are fairing so far. It isn’t particularly pretty:

This map lists the apparent temperatures (or how cold it felt) at 10 a.m. today. In cold weather, apparent temperatures are derived from a combination of actual degrees Fahrenheit and wind chill. Click to enlarge.

If you’re hanging around New England this weekend and plan to be outdoors, be sure to bundle up and grab your copy of the Health and Safety Program Manual from McMurdo Station, Antarctica. (The manual should help keep you out of harm’s way–it’s required reading for all visitors to McMurdo who intend to venture out into the snowy wilderness.)

The Associated Press reported today that Joe The Plumber is headed to Israel to serve as a war correspondent for the conservative Web site Pajamas TV. In the off chance you don’t remember, Joe (actually Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher) gained national fame during election season when he asked President-elect Barack Obama about his tax plan. The McCain camp used a clip of the unflattering Q&A in an arguably well-fought attempt to gain support during the campaign’s final weeks.

As for Joe’s recent news, he plans to spend 10 days (and perhaps the rest of his 15 minutes) covering the Israel-Gaza conflict. His angle? Letting “‘Average Joes’ share their story.”

Now, I like the concept of reporting on Israelis’ daily lives and how war affects the average citizen. And, as a multimedia journalist, I also like the idea of regular citizens getting involved. The Web–including social networking sites, CNN’s iReport, Fox’s UReport, and blogs–has changed what it means to even be a journalist. It has grayed the line between “professional journalism” (e.g. the Associated Press) and “citizen journalism” (e.g., someone’s uncle’s blog on local UFO sightings or any other instance where non-professionals collect, report, analyze and disseminate news and information).

For better or worse, there is no Hippocratic oath for us in the media. And as much as I love my Society of Professional Journalists membership card, it’s not a license. Any argument against average citizens reporting the news is purely opinion-based. Surely any citizen, if he or she reports the truth, is a better journalist than Stephen Glass and Jayson Blair were in the end.

On the flip-side of things, I admit that I am more than a little uncomfortable at the prospect of Joe the War Reporter. To say the Israeli-Gaza conflict is a “serious topic” would be a gross understatement, and so I’ve got a lot of concerns: Does Joe have any journalistic training? Will he be fair to all parties involved in the conflict? Does he know the difference between objectivity and editorializing, and does he care? Will anyone be there to fact-check his work?

I’m leaving this one up to you guys. What do think about this issue? You don’t have to be a journalist to fill out this poll. In fact, I’m hoping to get a healthy mix of responses. If you do choose to take the poll, please elaborate upon your answer in the comments section.

Generally speaking, is citizen journalism a viable news source? (That is, do the pros outweigh the cons?) Yes No Not Sure

Note: I could be completely wrong to attach a time limit to Joe’s fame–a lot of Americans really seem to love him. Considering his personality and political leanings, he could wind up being the next Bill O’Reilly. O’Reilly, after all, didn’t start out as a reporter either.

(Originally published Nov. 6, 2008)

I saw this video earlier today, and I still can’t decide who to be upset with. Please watch it and then read my comments below.

Full video from Fox News

I never liked Governor Sarah Palin all that much when it came to politics. She really only seemed to speak to Senator John McCain’s base, yet to a might-as-well-be-independent like me, Palin seemed a little out-of-touch and more than a little arrogant in her assumptions about all Americans. My husband isn’t a Joe Six-Pack. He’s a Steve One-Beer, if anything, or perhaps a Steve Doesn’t-Define-Himself-By-What-He-Imbibes. As for me, I don’t define myself by my trade, and I don’t think that I’m in any particular demographic that would have benefited from McCain’s tax plan more than President-elect Obama’s. I don’t feel squelched by liberal policies (I like both gays and religious freedom) and further, I don’t believe Palin was at all a victim of “Gotcha journalism.” Finally, I never found Sarah Palin particularly qualified even though she had served as governor of one of our great states.

But even with all of this in mind, Palin is not the one I’m upset with.

John McCain and his people led us to believe that Sarah Palin was the woman for the job. They told us she was brilliant, that she was qualified, and that she would be a woman to serve all Americans. So either McCain and his camp lied to us from the very beginning and almost saddled us with this now seemingly unqualified woman as the second in command in leadership of the free world, as they say… or, McCain’s campaign folks and Fox News (all big Palin people) are now totally passing the buck.

Who can be so dedicated to a cause one minute and then just abandon ship the second things go badly?

I don’t know about you, but I’d like some answers.

During our final season, my co-host Matt Williams and I decided to turn our radio show, The Rebel Faction, into something more than just a “student” talk show. We were already covering professional topics, many of which were not even being covered by our local professional media. The task at hand was to take ourselves to the next level by understanding that the only difference between The Rebel Faction and any given show on National or Mississippi Public Broadcasting could be limited to our location on the radio dial. It was up to us to strive to become better.

In February, we organized a show on Islam, which can be heard on the Rebel Faction portion of this site. Our guests were both qualified to discuss and passionate about the topic. Thanks to them, and to our own desire to ask questions that weren’t being addressed by North Mississippi press, we ended up with what I feel might have been one of our best shows this season. In fact, it’s definitely in my personal top three in terms of all of the shows we’ve ever done.

While Matt and I will both agree that The Rebel Faction was far from being a perfect show in terms of timing, production and even content, we have seen the evolution firsthand. The show was our playground for three years, and at the same time, it became our classroom. I personally learned more about radio and broadcasting in general by doing this show than I had ever learned in the classroom. There is nothing like hands-on experience.

We want to thank you, the listeners, for all you’ve given us. And, we want to thank you for this award. It might not be gold, but the competition was tough, and we’re certainly proud of it. Thank you.

It seems that Valerie Plame is no longer the only member of the Central Intelligence Agency to have her cover blown in recent history, at least according to an article in today’s Chicago Tribune. Roughly 2,600 other agents could be in the same boat.

Tribune staffers searched what they called “a commercial online data service,” and say that they were able to obtain a directory of these agents, a list of 50 internal agency phone numbers and even the geographical locations of about two dozen “secret” CIA facilities in the United States.

“Cover is a complex issue that is more complex in the Internet age,” CIA chief spokeswoman Jennifer Dyck told Tribune reporter John Crewdson. “There are things that worked previously that no longer work. Director [Porter] Goss is committed to modernizing the way the agency does cover in order to protect our officers who are doing dangerous work.”

As it stands now, however, this information is still available from a variety of resources similar to, and possibly including, Lexis-Nexis and even Google. Although many agents whose names were revealed through the Tribune’s search are not “covert”–at least 160 work openly as intelligence analysts–many do hold what are generally classified positions. The CIA confirmed this, but declined to state how many of the listed employees hold secret posts.

According to Crewdson, a senior U.S. official said of the computer searches used to gain access to agents’ identities: “I don’t know whether Al Qaeda could do this, but the Chinese could.”

The Libby Factor And Beyond

Revealing the names of covert agents not only has the potential of jeopardizing national security, but it also violates the Intelligence Agents Privacy Protection Act of 1984, carrying with it possible hefty fines and jail time (see trackback URLs: 7, 9, 10, 12,14).

When political commentator Robert Novak revealed Plame’s identity in an opinion piece for The Washington Post in 2003, Plame had to leave her post, and although Novak has yet to see the inside of a jail cell for this issue, journalist Judith Miller went to prison for refusing to reveal the source. Unlike Novak, Miller had not disclosed Plame’s identity to the public.

Although initial speculation pointed toward White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove as the source, Time Magazine reporter Matthew Cooper admitted in 2005 that both Rove and (then) Vice Presidential Chief of Staff Irv Lewis “Scooter” Libby had offered up to him both Plame’s identity and information on the agent.

According to Cooper, the duo never actually recited Plame’s name to him, but they did identify her by noting that she was “Wilson’s wife,” with Wilson being Joseph Wilson, a former U.S. foreign service diplomat who had he accused the Bush Administration of “exaggerating the Iraqi threat” in order to justify war.

Upon receiving a grand jury indictment on criminal felony charges in October, Libby resigned from his White House post. Charges include one count of obstruction of justice, two counts of perjury and two counts of making false statements, with each crime carrying a possible $250 million fine (more info: United States of America v. I. Lewis Libby). It should be noted that while these charges stem from the Plame investigation, neither Libby nor any other official has yet been charged with the actual offense of identifying a covert operative.

Nevertheless, the matter is still open, and Libby could–in case of new evidence–face additional charges. Also, if Karl Rove, Robert Novak or anyone else linked to the Plame scandal is indicted for violating the IAPPA, they might, in light of the Tribune article, find it possible to avert conviction.

After all, if anyone who visits a library and knows how to use databases similar to Lexis-Nexis is able to find out secret agents’ names, ages and physical locations, exactly how “secret” can their identities be?

Moreover, if these databases violate the IAPPA or similar legal initiatives, who will receive the blame, and can even they be punished? Who authorized the release of this information to these databases, and what could become of them? With the advent of the internet, did American privacy somehow become a myth?

As it stands now, these are orphan questions–questions without answers.

While it would be unethical for any journalist to ignore the old maxim, “the public has a right to know,” a line needs to be drawn. As citizens, our individual rights end when the next person’s rights begin. Like knowledge, privacy–especially privacy issues that effect national security–should be both respected and protected.

The CIA should be held accountable for this potentially dangerous oversight. If a group of journalists were able to identify this security breach, there is no excuse for the agency itself being ignorant of the problem. The CIA, like the military and our civilian police forces, has the duty to protect and serve this nation.

Who will we blame?

When King Abdullah II bin Al Hussein of Jordan spoke to a packed auditorium today at the University of Mississippi in Oxford, his message was clear: Christians, Jews and even Muslims, such as himself, should learn to live in unity and with solidarity. Those individuals who alter the meanings of teachings from their own holy books are not true followers of their religions, he said, as each religion in reality places top value upon peaceful coexistence, rather than scripture-based violence.

“My religion, Islam, is why traditional Muslims decisively reject extremist violence and hatred,” the king said in his address. “The Koran says ‘O you who believe, enter into peace entirely,’ and it admonishes: ‘Do not transgress, truly God does not love the transgressors.’”

He went on to discuss acts of terrorism that have taken place worldwide and within Jordanian borders, such as the Amman bombings of last November, where the joyous celebration of a wedding turned quickly into a horrifying scene of violence.

The king said in thanks to the international community: “[W]hen Jordanians defied the terrorists; when thousands of our citizens marched in solidarity, Muslim and Christian, arm in arm, saying no to terror; when our country’s path of progress did not stop–people everywhere supported us.”

Notably, the king also espoused what some of what have become very unpopular opinions in the United States over the past few weeks. He said, for example, that the international community should respect the Palestinian decision to elect Hamas to lead their parliament, stating: “We have to respect their choice. For years the Palestinian people have expressed their desire for peace, and their respect for the legitimacy of international resolutions. Both peoples, Palestinian and Israeli are fed up with violence.”

“Establishing a viable, sovereign Palestinian state alongside a secure Israel,” he continued, “is the only way to restore stability and security.”

When it came to Iraq, Abdullah said that the international community as a whole has a responsibility to support the Iraqi people as they restore the stability and security of their country during this crucial rebuilding process.

Likewise, in order to prevent further violence and bloodshed, he said that it is the responsibility of world leaders to ensure that Iran will not acquire nuclear weapons.

Before I continue on with an analysis, I will provide for you the king’s speech in three forms:
[KING ABDULLAH SPEECH IN TEXT: (.PDF | .Doc); IN SOUND: 02032006abdullah.mp3 (00:14:01)]

Now to set things up so that we might move on to the subtext.

Long thought of as a bringer of peace politically and theologically akin to his father, the late King Hussein bin Talal, Abdullah has been a friend to the United States since his ascent to the throne in 1999.

It was under his reign that Jordan was admitted into the World Trade Organization. Likewise, his “Interfaith Message,” fashioned as a guide to create a pathway not just toward peace, but toward full acceptance and goodwill among the three major monotheistic religions (Islam, Christianity and Judaism) is considered one of the most forward-thinking statements on religion developed in recent years.

With that said, Abdullah is certainly not considered to be all that forward-thinking by the Jordanian press. He has amended his nation’s penal code to punish dissidents, and has been accused by many of his countrymen of being an opponent to free speech. Current Jordanian law prohibits all public criticism of the king and/or his policies, and violators can face up to three years in prison and fines as high as $7,000 (U.S.) Many journalists critical of Abdullah’s policies have been imprisoned for extended periods of time.

According to the Human Rights Watch in an article written last month, Jamil Abu Bakr, an editor for an opposing political party’s website, faces charges in relation to national security for posting articles that illustrate dissent from the king’s and current government’s policies.

According to Abu Bakr, prosecutors brought upon him charges early last month of “belittling the dignity of the Jordanian state.”

An article on the Human Rights Watch website states: “The charge refers to articles he posted in December 2004 on the website of the Islamic Action Front, a legal political party that has 17 members in the lower house of parliament. The articles, which criticized favoritism in the appointment of senior government officials, were written by two IAF parliamentarians, `Azzam al-Hunaidi and `Ali Abu Sukkar.”

Just months prior to these charges, in July 2005, the article claims that “senior government officials in Amman told Human Rights Watch that the authorities would eliminate press censorship and not apply articles of Jordan’s Penal Code that criminalize ‘insults’ to the king, or ’slander’ of government officials or institutions. The state security court tries most of these offenses criminalizing free speech.” (“Jordan: Editor Prosecuted for Posting Articles by MPs”)

It might be because of these free speech issues that the king declined to take any questions from the audience. All questions, in fact, came from “student polls” and were asked by a moderator. According to the students I spoke with, however, from regular undergraduates to those enrolled in the Sally McDonnell Barksdale Honors College and the Trent Lott Leadership Institute, no such student polling was ever conducted. If it was, they told me, then they were not aware of it.

Similarly, as you can see from the PDF linked above, journalists were instructed to strike a few sentences from the transcript of the king’s speech prior to his arrival this afternoon. The marked-out phrases read as follows:

“We behold with horror and disgust the recent targeting of Christian churches in Iraq, breaking with a 1,400-year tradition of Christian-Muslim friendship and mutual acceptance amongst the Arabs of the Levant. Equally, whilst we respect and revere freedom of speech, we condemn needless desecration and injury of Islamic sensibilities, such as the recent cartoons misrepresenting and vilifying my ancestor the Prophet (may peace and blessings be upon him).”

Abdullah did not address, and was not asked to address, his thoughts on free expression versus the dozen Danish cartoons depicting anti-Islamic themes. It is quite possible that the king’s advisors had instructed him to leave these comments out, and that the leader chose to comply. The simple fact is that we know what was left out, but we cannot say with certainty why.

All in all, despite the issues of free speech and expression going all but entirely unaddressed, the king–one of the world’s last sitting and effective monarchs–did bring to Mississippians a message that warrants repeating: the people who abuse religion, and not the relgions themselves, are responsible for belief-based terrorism.

In order to heal and to survive, it is imperative that we look beyond our differences and embrace our neighbors as our equals.

King Abdullah II bin Al Hussein of Jordan will speak at the University of Mississippi campus today to address a variety of issues, including yet not limited to: current political conflicts in the Middle East, Jordan’s attempts at creating unity among the faiths and the nation’s current internal reform process.

He will begin his address at 2 p.m. at the Gertrude C. Ford Center for the Performing Arts. Those who wish to attend are advised to arrive early, as the doors will close at 1 p.m.

The United States Secret Service will handle all security measures, and attendees will be asked to walk through metal detectors.

Large bags and electronic devices, such as cell phones, PDAs and CD or MP3 players, are prohibited. Cameras are allowed, but be advised that they will be inspected by security personnel.

If you cannot attend the address, but would like to experience the king’s speech, rest assured that it will be televised on channel 99 for local cable subscribers. Worldwide, people will be able to watch a webcast at the university’s web site.

Be advised that if you wish to view the webcast, you will need Windows Media Player 9 or better, or Quicktime 7, to see and hear the king.

For directions to the Ford Center, you may utilize the following map. The Center is building #126:

King Abdullah visits the university on the heels of his recent tour of Pakistan, India, China and Malaysia.

Prior to leaving Pakistan, the king stressed the need for improving trade relations, in terms of policy and economics, as well as on a person-to-person level.

He agreed with leaders that the current and impending nuclear stand off with Iran should be resolved peacefully.