The United States has been very good to me. I moved here with my family 20 years ago, when I was 9. Since then, I’ve gone to college and graduate school, I’ve met and married the love of my life, and I’ve experienced all kinds of freedoms that most people here are lucky enough to be able to take for granted.

The Constitution has always protected me. I’ve been able to say what I’ve wished to say and worship as I’ve wished to worship (if at all). I’ve been a member of the press, and I’ve never felt the heavy hand of government censorship separate me from a story. The list goes on, and yet, unless you count taxes, this country has never once asked anything of me in return. I don’t have to enlist in the military or cater to the whims of a dictator. I don’t even have to pretend to like or approve of anything our government says or does. In fact, the First Amendment to this great document ensures my right to “petition government for a redress of grievances” if I so choose.

This has been an emotional week for me. I’ve bounced back and forth between exhilaration at the thought of finally being an American and a feeling of mourning for the Canadian citizenship I’ve now given up. I have to admit: There were moments when I had to fight off the urge to go north of the border and stock up on ketchup-flavored potato chips and poutine—neither of which I even eat. I just had this irrational fear that these childhood favorites might no longer be available to me—that I might be seen as a traitor.

Of course, this will never happen because Canada, like America, is a free country. And now that the ceremony is over, I harbor no regrets. I love the nation where I was born as much as I love the United States. I am proud to call both of these places home.

The Ceremony:

The ceremony I attended took place at Boston’s Faneuil Hall. I couldn’t think of a more appropriate venue: It was there that Samuel Adams and others planned important actions that would help America attain its freedom from Great Britain.

All across America, hundreds of thousands of new citizens take the Oath of Allegiance each year. We, like President Barack Obama and the 535 members of Congress, can vote and run for public office. We can make a difference and enact change. And in exchange, if our country needs our help, we have pledged to give it willingly and without reservation. Here is the full text of the Oath:

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the armed forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.

I take these words seriously. If it is my right to vote or my freedom to speak my mind, then it is my duty to help my fellow citizens. And if I morally or ethically object to any of these responsibilities, then it is my right, my freedom and my duty to work within the laws of the land and petition the government to change things for the better.

It’s good to be an American.

Following the Oath of Allegiance, we each stood to represent our nations of origin as they were called. As the judge pointed out: While we were all Americans that day, America would not call for us to turn our backs on who we were.

“Daily Show” anchor Jon Stewart discusses commentator Keith Olbermann’s return to MSNBC following a brief suspension for making unapproved political contributions.

There. I said it.

I could write paragraphs about how I sway a little left or a touch right, depending on the issue, but I would have to qualify each and every sentence with words like “usually” and “often,” and phrases such as “in my experience.” I have no loyalties to liberalism or conservatism, and so in the end, my stances on various topics come out sounding a bit wishy-washy.

It’s the plight of living in the aisle that so many politicians struggle to “reach across.”

Following last month’s “Rally to Restore Sanity” in Washington, D.C., some of my more liberal friends expressed great disdain at moderate “Daily Show” anchor Jon Stewart for acknowledging that left-wing commentators like MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann can be just as damaging to truth and public knowledge as his right-wing contemporaries: Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and so forth.

Indeed, here’s a clip from a January episode in which Stewart calls Olbermann out for attacking Senator Scott Brown (R-Mass.) as an “irresponsible, homophobic, racist, reactionary, ex-nude model, teabagging supporter of violence against women and against politicians with whom he disagrees.”

Olbermann says that Scott Brown supports violence against women because, shortly after a Brown supporter screamed at a political rally that someone should “shove a curling iron up [opponent Martha Coakley's] butt,” Brown smiled and said “we can do this.”

I admit the timing doesn’t exactly work in Brown’s favor (see the following video), but it’s a long stretch to say that the statement was in any way related to the Coakley comment. More likely, since Brown was about to leave the platform, his smile and “we can do this” words of encouragement were just his closing gestures to his audience.

That said, there is no way to misinterpret Olbermann’s own words, where he likens Michelle Malkin (also not one of my favorite talking heads) to a “mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick on it.” Olbermann’s rant begins at 1:03.

To a moderate, Olbermann sometimes just goes to far, as does Malkin, as does Limbaugh, as do Bill O’Reilly and the whole crew. The most detestable talking heads on the left and right twist language to make opinions sound like facts. They make a living demonizing the opposition. But, as the late Democrat senator (New York) and United Nations ambassador to India, Pat Moynihan, once said, “Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts.”

This twisting of language is the root cause for why so many lefties can say that “at least Olbermann is telling the truth” while many righties, by the same token, say the exact same of Rush Limaugh. Point out any misleading, corrupted statements from either-or, and supporters will claim hyperbole or that their favorite talking head was “just being facetious” (I’ve heard that one before). Point out similar misleading, corrupted statements from the other side, and those same audiences will spout angrily about “lies” and “deception.”

Here’s the thing about moderates. We see both sides to every coin. We can’t help it.

There was a great piece in yesterday’s Washington Post from one of my favorite living journalists, Ted Koppel, in which he lamented about “Olbermann, O’Reilly and the death of real news.”

Koppel writes:

We live now in a cable news universe that celebrates the opinions of Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly—individuals who hold up the twin pillars of political partisanship and who are encouraged to do so by their parent organizations because their brand of analysis and commentary is highly profitable.

The commercial success of both Fox News and MSNBC is a source of nonpartisan sadness for me. While I can appreciate the financial logic of drowning television viewers in a flood of opinions designed to confirm their own biases, the trend is not good for the republic. It is, though, the natural outcome of a growing sense of national entitlement.

…

Beginning, perhaps, from the reasonable perspective that absolute objectivity is unattainable, Fox News and MSNBC no longer even attempt it. They show us the world not as it is, but as partisans (and loyal viewers) at either end of the political spectrum would like it to be. This is to journalism what Bernie Madoff was to investment: He told his customers what they wanted to hear, and by the time they learned the truth, their money was gone.

It is also part of a pervasive ethos that eschews facts in favor of an idealized reality. The fashion industry has apparently known this for years: Esquire magazine recently found that men’s jeans from a variety of name-brand manufacturers are cut large but labeled small. The actual waist sizes are anywhere from three to six inches roomier than their labels insist.

Perhaps it doesn’t matter that we are being flattered into believing what any full-length mirror can tell us is untrue. But when our accountants, bankers and lawyers, our doctors and our politicians tell us only what we want to hear, despite hard evidence to the contrary, we are headed for disaster. We need only look at our housing industry, our credit card debt, the cost of two wars subsidized by borrowed money, and the rising deficit to understand the dangers of entitlement run rampant. We celebrate truth as a virtue, but only in the abstract. What we really need in our search for truth is a commodity that used to be at the heart of good journalism: facts—along with a willingness to present those facts without fear or favor.

Unfortunately, as Koppel goes on to say: “The transition of news from a public service to a profitable commodity is irreversible.”

And there you have it. We as a nation, as a planet, have turned our one source of truth and information into something tailored just for us and our sensibilities—into some ridiculous venti, skinny, half-caf, caramel-mocha latte-on-ice version of news.

We don’t have to hear about how the people we support aren’t necessarily the “good guys” today because all of that air time is now taken up with filler, hyperbole, conjecture, and brutal verbal attacks on the opposition that aren’t quite as clever as we (the Maddows and the Malkins) seem to think they are.

The worst part is, there’s nothing left to stop us.

I poked around online yesterday looking for the proper N400 form, and I ended up perusing some study materials and sample questions for the citizenship test.

I find this sort of thing pretty interesting, so I thought I’d share.

The spelling is of course quite easy for a native English speaker such as myself. And if any of you born-and-raised Americans can’t ace the civics portion, I worry about you.

The sad truth–or shall I say, the sad speculation and educated guess–is that a lot of Americans wouldn’t do well on this test on the first try. How many is “a lot”? Well, that depends. Now that the questions asked are more open-ended than they used to be–with queries like “What does the Constitution do?” replacing old ones like “What is the Constitution?”–lots of news organizations are digging around to see how well various samplings of U.S. citizens perform. (Examples: Fox News; CNN–you can even try your hand at a few questions at MSNBC.)

Out of simple curiosity, I’d love to see all Americans taking the 2010 census also try their hands at the citizenship test. How well do you think our citizenry would perform on average? How well will you do if you take the MSNBC sample test?

Fair is fair: I got a 95% thanks to the question regarding which listed state was not part of the original 13 colonies.

NOTE: This MSNBC test is arguably easier than the actual U.S. citizenship test because candidates for naturalization are given questions in short-answer format as opposed to multiple choice. As such, I recommend you check out the official study materials and sample questions from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Web site.

Addendum: I’ve received several messages and comments from people regarding why they think many Americans would fail the citizenship test on the first go. In summary, they point out that most of the voting public is well beyond the days of elementary and high school civics and therefore shouldn’t be expected to retain historical facts and dates that do not affect them on a daily basis.

While I don’t personally think every American needs to know the number of amendments to the Constitution off the top of his or her heard, I do think other questions on the test are very important: Which branch of government declares war? Who is one of the U.S. senators from your state? Who selects new justices for the U.S. Supreme Court and what powers does the court have?

I think that every single American registered to vote should be able to answer these questions correctly–no excuses.

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?

What is an Obamicon, you ask? Well, it’s a four-color visual representation of any image designed to resemble Shepard Fairey‘s famous poster (below) depicting President Barack Obama and the word “hope,” a key term from the leader’s 2008 campaign.

Thanks to Paste Magazine and their Web site project, Obamicon.me, users from around the world can easily upload an image of their choosing and caption it with any word or short phrase. As you can see, the end results aren’t perfect, but they are pretty close.

They’re so close, in fact, that users worldwide have generated more than 150,000 icons since the site launched two weeks ago.

While this internet meme might never see the massive success of I Can Has Cheezburger‘s famed Lolcats or even Rickrolling‘s accidental star, ’80s pop artist Rick Astley, don’t be surprised if you start finding Obamicons in unexpected places. Not only are users setting their icons as profile images on sites like Facebook and MySpace, but some are also using Obamicon to borrow from the famous “fail” meme. (You can see other fail meme examples here.)

All in all, I think Obamicon makes for a pretty fun site. Below are a few of my favorite images that others have created. You can see more on the Obamicon site.

I can has memes?

I’d vote for him.

Damn it, House! It’s never lupus!

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?

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.

Joe the Plumber in Elyria, Ohio with Sen. Lindsay Graham and Cindy McCain behind him

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

“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.

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.

And in sports news, News-Geek’s sympathies go out to Senators Lott and McCain, as it looks as though Ole Miss football has seen yet another defeat this season. Thanks a lot, LSU.

[CLICK FOR THE PRESS CONFERENCE: (Nov182005pressc.mp3--00:14:48)]

John McCain is the man to watch in 2005 and beyond. While he never admitted to a possible presidential bid for 2008, he more importantly did not deny the possibility that he might run. A moderate who calls himself a republican, McCain is beloved by many on the right, the left and in between as a statesman and leader.

His record on most issues is mixed. For example, while he did not support same-sex marriages in 2000, he did say that he would be comfortable with a homosexual president in office. Likewise, while he did not support the Kyoto Accord on international emissions standards, he also voted no on drilling at the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and in Alaska. Moreover, he voted yes on developing 100,000 hydrogen-powered vehicles by 2010, and 2.5 million of these by 2020 (Bill S.14; vote number 2003-212 on June 10th, 2003).

A republican with the political blood of Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt coursing through his veins, McCain is unafraid of working against party lines, as could also be seen last year when he was one of 58 senators to sign a letter to President Bush, urging him to work with Congress and researchers in the realm of embryonic stem cell research. The letter requested that all 78 lines be made available to researchers, as they only have 19 to work with right now. All 19 are contaminated with mouse feeder cells (Letter to the President 04-SEN8, June 4th 2004).

Soon after this press conference, Sen. McCain, along with Sen. Lott and Chancellor Robert Khayat, made the short journey to the Ford Center for the Performing Arts, also on the University of Mississippi campus. During this time, he delved further into the war in Iraq, as well as a number of other topics (as can be seen here and here).

I had planned initially to bring you, my dear reader(s), recordings of both this conference and Sen. McCain’s address to the public, which followed directly.

However, before I explain what happened, let me share with you a brief morality tale on the pros and cons of technology.

Unfortunately, while the digital age has been a godsend in terms of saving time and bringing the public at large information through multiple media, such technological advancements do come at a cost.

That is, while a man who uses a ballpoint to write his Pulitzer-worthy masterpiece has no reason to panic when his pen runs out of ink upon his work’s completion, even the most prideful of today’s tech-savvy journalists have the all-too-real fear of data loss lingering in the backs of their minds.

Hardly a pride-filled reporter, myself, this fear is a constant for me. But, hey–technical accidents happen. My much beloved iRiver H320 lost a bit of data last night thanks to a power issue. Lost in transit were my recordings of Sen. McCain’s main speech and, more regrettably (as I have no backups for this) a set of interviews I’d recorded for News-Geek.

Keep an eye out for Sen. McCain’s address to the public at the University of Mississippi, as I should soon be able to obtain a backup copy of his speech (and the question and answer session that followed thereafter). Thank goodness for fallback plans.

Is Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice a demon, or does she just play one on the internet?

The Web was abuzz with rumors and excitement yesterday as word circulated about the latest so-called “Left-wing” attempt at making the Right look bad. Bloggers, webmasters and forum watchers worldwide spent the day debating amongst themselves about Michelle Malkin’s latest commentary on USA Today’s supposedly suspicious use of photo-manipulation techniques.

A conservative columnist and regular contributor to Fox News, Malkin posted on her website copies of the following images, the first from the Associated Press and the second from USA Today’s website:

The Original Image

The Doctored Image

As you can see, the USA Today image is clearly and undeniably different from the original photograph, but this is not the point. The question at hand is whether USA Today intentionally altered Rice’s picture to make her look “possessed” and “demonic,” or any of the other laughable adjectives conspiracy theorists all over the political spectrum are throwing around about her these days. This resulting backlash from Malkin’s blog entry should come as no surprise. After all, accusations of a liberal slant in the media always get attention when there are visual aids involved

Careful not to make any accusations against the paper herself, Malkin speaks through the commentary of the letter-writers she chooses to quote on her blog.

One commentator named “Steve I.,” who claims to have received an A.A. from the Colorado Institute of Art, is quoted as saying the following:

(1) Any filter in Photoshop would apply to the whole image. The absurd sharpening would bring out her necklines, the stripes in her shirt, her lips, her nostrils, her earrings, etc. So the image was deliberately manipulated around the eyes.

(2) Notice how the pupils have been narrowed, like a cat’s eyes. Sharpening would not alter the roundness of her pupils, only accentuate them. Another paint or erase tool is required to achieve that effect.

Whatever Steve received his degree in, chances are that it was not in graphic design. Both of the above assessments are laughable.

On the first note, it is indeed possible to filter just one part of a photograph, even with versions of Adobe Photoshop that are older than the copy of v. 5.5 that Steve uses.

Using “masks,” a term very familiar to users who are even just moderately experienced with Photoshop, artists can apply image filters (such as those for sharpening, brightening or creating contrast) that will only affect the unmasked sections of a given image.

In simple terms, a mask of an image is like a gray-scaled copy of it that is placed on top of the original image, although the mask is not visible in the photograph itself. The black parts of this invisible mask are opaque to filters, while the white sections are transparent and the gray sections are semi-transparent.

Imagine looking at a field (your main image) behind a fence (you mask). The wood of the fence would be the black part of the mask, while the gaps would be the white. If the filter of sunlight hits the fence, the light only affects those parts of the field not hidden by wood. As a result, the image of the field would appear unaffected in some places (the shadows) and affected in other places (the strips of light).

It is common practice for artists and photo editors to create masks that cover everything in a photograph but someone’s eyes. This allows for them to run simple, one-click filters on just those eyes, making them in many cases both brighter and sharper.

Here are the eyes of the original image and the doctored image:

The Original Image

The Doctored Image

On the second point, Steve’s alleged ten years of experience with Adobe Photoshop obviously never led him to use sharpening or contrast filters. While the doctored eyes certainly look a little “cat-like,” it is absurd to say that this was done with the elaborate brushwork or erasing tools.

Below are the results of what I got when I took the original image and ran an unsharp mask on it. For the sake of effect, I used the maximum amount of sharpening with the maximum radius and no threshold. Of course, I did not select just the eyes, as you can see by the changes in Rice’s other facial features, but this is not the point. Instead the point here is that, unlike what Steve said in his commentary, there is no need to use brushes in order to change pupil and iris shape. Instead, this is a side-effect of changing the sharpness of the picture.

The Original Image

The Original Image, Now Doctored By Me

Obviously, this was not the only filter that USA Today used on the eyes, but as you can see here, even the simple use of an unsharp mask has made the them look “cat-like.”

So much for Steve’s expertise. It seems just a touch suspicious that Malkin has yet to publish any letters refuting Steve’s claims.

As for the claims of another commenter, “L.C.,” it is true that USA Today used more than just an unsharp mask to edit the look of the eyes. As you can see above, such a mask makes the eyes look very un-human, so of course more editing was done to make them look more realistic.

What L.C. neglects to mention is that newspapers will often brighten eyes just so that they appear normal on “dead tree” editions of the papers. While the photo editing certainly appears a bit excessive on the web, here is what the normal photograph and the doctored image would look like in newspaper print:

The Original Image

The Doctored Image

In order to get these effects, I enlarged the original and doctored images until they were about 600 pixels wide and 473 pixels tall. This should be closer to their actual size prior to going to the Web.

Next, I grayscaled the first set of images and then used a halftone filter on them before bringing them down to the size you see above. For the second set of images, I simply used a color halftone before resizing again. Mind you, I used the weakest halftone I could get.

The images on the left represent what the original photograph might look like on paper, while the ones on the right depict the doctored image. Being that newspaper paper is low in quality and porous, chances are that the eyes in the first image would be very difficult to see in print. The second set of images now show clearer eyes.

These supposedly “demonic” photographic edits, then, were probably not part of a vast, Left-wing/USA Today conspiracy. With the evidence shown above, it looks more like the for-print photograph accidentally made it to the web.

This is one of the flaws of media convergence. Sometimes the wrong image goes to the wrong medium.

This is not to say that photographic doctoring is new to journalism. Indeed, sometimes magazines and newspapers make major ethical mistakes. While airbrushing and body part shifting is common place in fashion magazines, the real ethical problems lie in photo editing in relation to hard news.

There are countless examples of this taking place in the media, and for the most part, there have been no political ties associated with the editing. Below is one of the most famous examples of this, which took place during my childhood in 1994.

The Original Image

The Doctored Image

When the above issues of Newsweek and Time hit the newsstands simultaneously, it was easy to see that Time, perhaps in an effort to be dramatic, darkened their copy of former football player O.J. Simpson’s mugshot. Although race was likely not a motivating factor in this, many groups responded with anger, accusing Time of perpetuating the “brute” stereotype of African Americans.

To be sure, photo doctoring happens all of the time. This is not a justification of the matter, but it is a very important point to make. What USA Today did hardly seems unethical, despite what the likes of Michelle Malkin or Matt Drudge have to say. These two are not exactly bastions of journalistic ethics, themselves.

While Malkin picks and chooses her “evidence,” provided by pseudo-experts who just happen to agree with her, Drudge seems to accept any story as fact, regardless of the lack of details before him.

According to research conducted by media journal Brill’s Content after the President Bill Clinton-Monica Lewinsky scandal, Drudge claimed that 51 of his stories from January through September of 1998 were exclusives, although only 31 actually were. Of those 31, a full third contained glaring falsehoods, while another third consisted of questionable information that had yet to be authenticated. (Source: David McClintick–”The big extract: Drudge’s report card.” The Guardian, 31 Oct. 1998: 12.)

As for any “Right-wing” conspiracies in the news, it is only fair to make note of what I like to call the Republican Halo Phenomenon, something many forum-goers have been discussing since Malkin posted her blog entry. The RHP represents a plethora of pictures taken over the past few years where various republican leaders have been “haloed,” so to speak, by different objects. Is this meant to be subliminal? Possibly. Is this just a coincidence? In most cases, I would say so.

However, if you’d like to see some examples of President Bush haloed in a variety of ways, go to this Google Image Search.

Certainly, there are many folks at many different news organization who like to insert their political leanings into all that they do. Most journalists agree that these people, regardless of their politics, should be weeded out.

There are no vast, any-wing conspiracies lurking in the shadows like the bogeyman at night. There are only those individuals with persecution complexes thinking that the entire “other” political side is out to get them.

Ms. Malkin, Mr. Drudge and dear readers, please understand: the biggest conspiracies man sees in the world around him actually reside in his head.

[Special thanks to Thomas for helping me put the Photoshop information in laymen’s terms.]

He told the WWL-AM radio station earlier today: “You got to be kidding me. This is a national disaster. Get every doggone Greyhound bus line in the country and get their asses moving to New Orleans” (click here for the full transcript).

Now, in the midst of rape, violence and bloodshed as some police barricade themselves into their headquarters, the troops have arrived with food, water and weapons.

For many of the evacuees, surrounded for days by a seemingly endless level of urban terrorism, these troops are the answer to their survival. They are the bringers of order and safety.

For others, their arrival is too little, too late.

As 46-year-old Michael Levy told Associated Press reporter Allen G. Breed when asked if he was pleased to see the troops, “Hell no, I’m not glad to see them. They should have been here days ago. I ain’t glad to see ‘em. I’ll be glad when 100 buses show up.

To this, people surrounding Levy showed their approval, screaming “Hell, yeah! Hell yeah!”

“We’ve been sleeping on the … ground like rats,” Levy told the AP. “I say burn this whole … city down” (read the rest of this story here).

The question is, why did deployment take so long? Certainly, the fact that a great number of American troops are now overseas is likely a major factor. But if that is the case, should any nation, even one as powerful as the United States, place a majority of its troops in one location without preparing for possible disaster on the homefront?

The simple answer is “no.” The more complicated answer can probably be summarized by the phrase, “we just didn’t think about it.”

If it is not a lack of numbers that has brought about this slow mobilization, then what is it?

We can only speculate the answer, but this question is still worth asking: If tragedy along these lines had struck Florida or Texas, would the troops have been deployed sooner?

There is no simple way to answer this. Quite frankly, we have no way of knowing.

Meanwhile the number of confirmed deaths from post-hurricane conditions continues to rise.