Yesterday marked the 4th annual International Pillow Fight Day, an all-ages event designed to turn outdoor spaces into giant playgrounds—and, of course, to allow stressed-out urbanites to release their frustrations by pummeling each other with soft, cushiony weaponry.

Don’t worry, it’s all fun and games. No one, to date, has lost an eye.

I attended the Boston fight at Cambridge Common, near Harvard University. Though unarmed, myself, I bravely entered the battlefield to take a few pictures (below). I got hit by a few small children—they’re ruthless—but I left mostly unscathed. In all, it seems the revelers had a great time.

Being the multimedia nerd that I am, I also shot this short video via my iPhone:

For more information on this flash-mob-style event, or to register your city for next year, check out the International Pillow Fight Day Web site.

At the risk of sounding pretentious, I consider myself somewhat of a culinary adventurer. I’ve tried everything from shark stew to ris d’agneau (fancy French for a lamb’s thymus). And, while I admit I haven’t revisited most of these daring dishes—mainly because they ended up tasting, to me, as gross as they sound to my American ears—something inside of me keeps wanting to press forward, to keep sampling new, unique cuisine from the far reaches of our planet.

To give a nod to author and blogger Trey Ellis, I don’t like to “yuck” anyone’s “yum”—not until I’ve tasted it, anyway. How can you pass judgment on foods other cultures love and, more importantly, sustain themselves with, when you haven’t even tried them yourself?

This weekend, several friends and I sampled the Empanadas de Chicharron de Chapulin (fancy Spanish for grasshopper turnovers) at Tu Y Yo, a wonderfully authentic Mexican restaurant in Somerville, Mass. Grasshoppers are considered a good source of protein throughout much of Mexico, particularly in Oaxaca, where they can be purchased as street food or enjoyed as a meal at home. (I learned this when I worked with authors and insect connoisseurs Peter Menzel and Faith D’Aluisio for a NOVA feature I produced called “Bugs You Can Eat.”)

Though I’ve spent most of my life terrified of bugs, I figured what better way to conquer those fears than to eat my enemy? All right, so that sounded better in my head.

Here’s what my friends and I had to say about our first foray into the the world of creepy, crawly eats. But first, the brave tasters and the meal ahead:

Audrey

Matt

Kristina

Steve

Rima

Ethan

Brandon

Take a good look at those tasty, tasty bug bits.

Rima [slicing an empanada in half]: Do you guys see any grasshopper parts, here?

Audrey: You know, they’re not really distinguishable, but–Oh, there’s a leg!

Rima: Is that a knee? Do grasshoppers have knees? Gross.

Audrey: I thought I wouldn’t be nervous about this because I’ll eat pretty much anything, but now I’m having some second thoughts. [She tries it anyway.] You know, it’s not that bad. You can’t tell that there are grasshoppers in there. It just tastes like an empanada with something salty and greasy inside. It tastes like fried…meat. Just some sort of meat. Not that bad!

Brandon: I’m eying one of these middle pieces—I can see some discernible grasshopper parts. There’s definitely a thorax going on here! For the sake of food purity, I’m not going to sauce this. We’re just going to go pure, fried grasshopper. [He takes a big, greedy bite; most of the group gasps and/or gags.]

It’s pungent! It’s a little doughy, perhaps from not having been fried long enough, but I caught one of those furry little back legs that really tickles your tongue. Excellent mouth feel—I could eat a dozen of these.

Trying it with the sauce, I really like it. It’s got a little serrano chili, a little crème fraiche, a little cilantro. Fatty mouth feel, there. All of the flavors are really subtle.

Steve [after about a minute of chewing and thinking]: Trying it without the sauce, I couldn’t really taste anything identifiable in the empanada. I think I would need to just eat a plain grasshopper, no spices or seasoning, just to see what it really tastes like. This tastes like a generic fried appetizer to me.

Rima [moving a leg part around with her fork]: Wow. That does not look nice. I know it’s good, low-fat protein, however the visuals are really scaring me here. I’m ashamed to admit it, but I really don’t like for my animal by-products to look like the creatures from which they came.

Brandon: So, you like to be far-removed from the food you’re eating?

Rima: Absolutely. Not gonna lie. But, I’ll try it. In a minute.

Brandon: Just pop a whole one in your mouth. It’s delicious. It’s got the texture of soft-shell crab.

Rima [taking perhaps the smallest bite possible]: Psychologically, that was the scariest experience I’ve had in a long time. I’m terrified of insects, and there’s something weird about eating something you fear. Taste-wise, this was kind of a let-down. I’m with Steve and Audrey: The empanada just tasted like a fried, spiced meat turnover with no flavor of its own. I really like the sauce, though: It’s got a kick to it, but the creaminess really cools that down.

The dish is unlike anything I’ve tried before, and I’m not really too keen on trying it again.

[Observing Brandon]

Oh, yuck! You’re discarding the empanada and going straight for grasshopper pieces?!

Kristina: Is it chickening out if I just eat the doughy part?

Everyone: Yes.

Kristina: It’s… OK. Actually, it’s yucky. But, I think seeing the grasshopper body bits made it hard to objectively judge the taste.

Ethan: I’ll try it. [He takes a bite to rival Brandon's.]

It’s like a swarm in my mouth! A plague of flavor! To me, it’s kind of musty-tasting, like beef jerky mixed with shrimp chips.

Matt: Yeah, it’s pretty good! It’s chewy, but the grasshopper itself doesn’t have a strong flavor. I like it. I give it a thumbs up!

Audrey: On the second time around, I actually really like it. I just had a bigger piece, and I find it meaty. It’s fried, doughy meat.

Rima: Would you guys try this again?

Most of the table: No.

Brandon: I would! I’d definitely eat more grasshoppers in the future. I think I’ll get the grasshopper tacos next time and ask the restaurant to really fill them up.

Ew, is that a knee?

(Sidenote: I am a big fan of NPR’s “Wait Wait…Don’t Tell Me!” I got idea to transcribe our conversation above from their weekly blog series, “Sandwich Monday.” Read it. You’ll love it.)

I am a political moderate.

“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.”

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
Special Comment – Keith Olbermann’s Name-Calling
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Rally to Restore Sanity

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.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

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.

Facebook marketing guru Randi Zuckerberg estimates that the social-networking site will reach the half-billion user mark sometime next week. Barring duplicate accounts, that’s 1/13th of the planet’s population, and it means that there will be more Facebook users worldwide than there are Buddhists. (sources: 1, 2, 3)

Though we had an official photographer, one of my favorite pictures from our wedding came from my friend and former radio co-host Matt Williams

To commemorate this milestone, the site will launch “Facebook Stories,” a collection of short, user-submitted blurbs about how Facebook has changed our lives.

According to Zuckerberg (sister of CEO and founder Mark Zuckerberg), a “Facebook Stories” Web page will list selected tales by location and themes such as “finding love,” “coping with grief” and “natural disasters.” Each story will be limited to just 420 characters, or the maximum length of a status update.

You can submit your own story via a simple form. And, if your story becomes popular and gets more “likes” than most stories, it could be featured on the site for all to see.

Here’s the story I submitted:

FB turned my wedding into a social-networking event! When we got married, we had a full “wedding week,” typical of my Indian people. Several of our friends photographed everything–sangeet, chura, various parties, our two (Hindu and Lutheran) weddings, our reception, etc.–and promptly uploaded their pics. One of the best gifts I received was an inbox full of loving comments from those who couldn’t attend.

What kinds of stories would you submit?

July 21, 2010 Update: Be sure to hit up http://stories.facebook.com and vote for your favorite stories! You can “like” mine here–that is, if you really do like it.

NOVA airs Tuesdays at 8 p.m., EST. Check your local listings for more. (Image courtesy NOVA)

In honor of Independence Day, NOVA will air “Missing in MiG Alley,” an hour-long documentary about the American and Russian soldiers who fought in history’s first “jet war,” the Korean War. The program examines the new piloting techniques and innovative jet technologies that would change combat forever.

Below, you’ll find an interactive comparison of the dueling Russian MiG-15bis and the American F-86 Sabre, which I created for the show’s companion site on NOVA Online.

The MiG and the Sabre pushed aviation technology to its limits during the Korean War. When they met in dogfights over the Yalu River, in an area nicknamed MiG Alley, both fighters overshadowed their predecessors through sharp climbs, steep dives, tight turns, and nearly supersonic speeds. They were closely matched in myriad ways, but the planes’ designers made different structural and aerodynamic trade-offs while developing their rival jets. Along with pilot skill and luck, these technological differences helped determine which side prevailed in any given dogfight. Take a close look at these two pioneering planes and see how they differed. (Just click on the image below and the interactive anatomy will pop out into a new window.)

Click above to compare the MiG-15bis and F-86 Sabre

NOVA’s “Missing in MiG Alley” will air on PBS this Tuesday, July 6 at 8 p.m., EST. You can check your local listings for additional air dates and times.

This has been quite a busy semester for my Multimedia Journalism students. They’ve gone from having little (if any) experience with HTML and online media to building and designing their own Web sites. Additionally, they’ve all created fabulous slide shows, audio-stills features, interactive maps, Web video, and so much more in the span of a few short months.

As if this hasn’t been enough, each student will be expected to cover the famed Boston Marathon next week. Most students will cover the event LIVE via tools like Qik, Ustream, Utterli, Mogulus, BlogTalkRadio, SoundSlides and more.

You’ll be able to keep up with everything they’re doing starting later this week via this FriendFeed account:

Be sure to subscribe to the account so you can get updates. Or, just come back here on Marathon Monday and take a look at all of the great work the students have done!

Kudos to my colleague Steve Garfield for setting this up!

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.

Kudos to Steve Garfield and my student, Nick, for this great on-the-fly chat about new media tools for journalists. Steve interviewed Nick today during the discussion section immediately following our class. You can listen to the clip right here:

Using only his cell phone, Steve had the above report and Nick’s picture online and ready to be viewed within minutes. Now it’s just six hours later, and so far more than 120 people have listened to the file.

If you’re interested in doing this kind of reporting yourself (as any self-respecting multimedia journalist should be) you should check out Utterli. With tools like this available all over the Web, there’s no excuse for any reporter with a decent cell to miss out on breaking news.

In other news, here’s my only contribution to cell-phone reporting today:

In my grocery store’s organic freezer section–right above the soy ice cream and next to the chocolate-covered frozen bananas–is the Yoghund, a yogurt treat formulated just for your dog. Yummy. Or should I say “yuppie”? (I also have a close-up shot of the text. I took both of these images with my iPhone and posted them via the iPhone WordPress application, which I once reviewed here.)

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.

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.

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.