Traditional journalism has been so battered that it can hardly afford to receive another black eye. Remember the CBS Evening Snooze and the Dan Rather debacle regarding President George W. Bush's National Guard service? "Just the facts, ma'am" has been replaced by the mantra, "All sensation, all the time." And there's nothing some members of the mainstream media like better than a salacious story about the troops in Iraq.

Since January, the New Republic has been running a hot series by a soldier operating under the pen name "Scott Thomas." The articles spoke of an Iraqi boy making friends with the Americans, then having his tongue slashed by insurgents. Hard-hearted soldiers in Iraq make fun of a disfigured woman; animal-hating GIs use armored personnel carriers to mow down dogs.

Such stories may make great copy, but the Army says that, as told in the New Republic, they simply weren't true. The whistle-blower, in this case, was the conservative Weekly Standard magazine. In an example of virtual democracy at work, the magazine dared bloggers to uncover the truth behind the liberal New Republic's dispatches.

Meanwhile, the military probe showed that all the soldiers from his unit countered the allegations made by Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp, the author of the articles. The Weekly Standard reported that Beauchamp eventually swore that the articles represented falsehoods.

Unfortunately, people with a penchant for publicity may be tempted to exaggerate. And the temptation can prove irresistible when there's a magazine around that's salivating at the chance to cast U.S. military efforts in Iraq in the most unflattering light possible.

Still, some important lessons are emerging from this journalistic travesty. To begin with, despite the efforts of some media outlets to discredit our military, the Army is not always wrong. In fact, it may be right quite a bit of the time. Secondly, the mainstream media's opposition to the war can lead to a kind of ideological blindness that makes it possible for articles with little credibility to appear within the pages of mainstream magazines. Thirdly, conservatives have more credibility than many rank-and-file journalists would have you believe. After all, it was the conservatives who called into question Beauchamp's dispatches.

Fourthly, even some members of the Fourth Estate are tiring of the slipshod way that some journalists are operating these days. Fox News reported that Bob Steele of a prestigious institute for journalists in Florida said that giving a writer anonymity "raises questions about authenticity and legitimacy." Steele also noted that anonymity permits the writer to "sidestep essential accountability."

We've seen it at CBS News, the New York Times, and the Washington Post—supposedly ground-breaking stories that proved, in the end, to be false. Inaccuracies and liberal bias have made journalism's old guard antiquated and ineffective. That's why the future belongs to the bloggers, where the goal is simply to report the truth, rather than the sensationalized fantasies of the media elite.

By: Nathan Tabor
http://www.theconservativevoice.com
Nathan Tabor is the Founder and CEO of TCVmedia.com and TheConservativeVoice.com. After just eighteen months, TheConservativeVoice.com gets over 250,000 unique visitors a month, 1.7 million page views and has over 150,000 email subscribers. The Conservative Voice has over 100 columnists and features up-to-the-minute news. He is heard daily on over 250 stations nationally with AConservativeMoment.com.

Private intelligence company Strategic Forecasting, Inc. (STRATFOR) recently published an article describing what it sees as the imminent end of the leftist domination of Europe. Specifically, the article says, "...2007 will see the end of the left as a leading force on the Continent."

In its analysis, STRATFOR states that a slow shift to the political right in Europe extends beyond Germany, France and the United Kingdom, and includes Poland, Finland, Sweden, the Netherlands, Belgium and Austria, the result of elections that have seen moderate and conservative parties making substantial gains.

While I agree with STRATFOR that a noticeable shift to the right is occurring in European politics, I break with their analysis on the future of the European Union. In the article, STRATFOR states that "A right-leaning Europe could be united under one leader, particularly since the states are brought closer together by common problems such as immigration and economic reform." Despite common security concerns and increasingly intertwined economic interests, European nations have thus far been unwilling to sacrifice traditionally sovereign powers and rights to the EU. The French think of themselves first as French and second as European. Likewise with the British, who place primacy on their status as citizens of Great Britain above their association with Europeans on the Continent. Nationalist ideals have been, and will continue to be, a significant contributor to the rejection of the proposed European Union Constitution.

In an interesting twist to the article, STRATFOR speculates that a united Europe has only two viable contenders for its leadership: Germany and the United States. Germany has indeed replaced France as the leading power in Europe, and Chancellor Angela Merkel is certainly capable of pushing hard for a strengthened European Union that could challenge the United States as a global power. If the sovereignty concerns of the 27 EU member states could somehow be overcome, and that is a long shot at best, then Germany could emerge as the most dominant nation in the EU.

But the United States? While America does have significant "reach and influence," as STRATFOR says, on the Continent, the idea of a unified Europe somehow led by the United States is inconceivable for a very simple, almost blatantly obvious, reason: the level of anti-American sentiment that exists on the Continent. The publics of most European nations adamantly oppose our actions in Iraq and many Europeans are resentful of our status as the world's lone superpower. We are seen by many as bullies who seek to impose our standards and values on everyone else, and further interference in European affairs is not likely to be appreciated or tolerated.

The most positive aspect of the article is the recognition that conservatism in Europe is making significant strides. Europe is buckling under the pressure created by the leftist policies that have dominated the Continent for the last couple of decades. The immigration problems of European countries require immediate attention and the social welfare systems in place throughout Europe cannot be maintained, especially with dwindling numbers of workers and declining birth rates. The populations of European nations are responding to the growing crises on the Continent by turning to moderate and conservative candidates who will push their countries in the right direction. This bodes well for the United States, which is likely to benefit from improved relations that will facilitate solutions to the common economic and security concerns that threaten both America and the nations of Europe. The challenge will be for the United States to work with our European allies to advance conservative agendas while taking great care not to intrude too much into their internal affairs.

By: Greg Reeson
http://reeson.townhall.com
Greg Reeson is a Senior Writer for The New Media Journal and a Featured Author for The Veterans' Voice. He also regularly contributes to GOPUSA and The Land of the Free.

MYTH: The NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND (NCLB) ACT directives and requirements have taken all the fun and creativity out of teaching and has set teachers up for failure.

OF HIGHEST CONCERN: This is now one of the most widely heard excuses in the field of education as of late. It is a very destructive excuse because it prevents the forward momentum so much needed in the educational profession.

NCLB is a U.S. federal law that was passed in 2002 aimed at improving the performance of primary and secondary schools. It requires that by the end of the 2006-07 school year that all teachers be highly qualified, and that schools use "scientifically based research" strategies in the classrooms and provide professional development of staff. NCLB also requires that the progress of all students will be measured annually in both math and reading and eventually, science, and that all students show progress. For schools identified as needing improvement, there has been a s substantial increase in funding for programs that will aid in school reforms.

THE REALITY: NCLB, as with most federally funded initiatives, has some serious issues to work through, but in no way does this excuse educators from striving towards the task. NCLB has introduced the educational field to idea of accountability, which in my opinion, is about time! In all the years I have worked as an educator, many "excuses" have have provided a buffer for teachers' justification of why students are not adequately progressing:

• "The students have poor home lives and don't get the support at home"
• "Many of our students only speak Spanish"
• "This student isn't motivated to learn"
• "We need a lot more money and programs to reach our goals"
• "Having every child reading at grade level by 3rd grade is impossible and unrealistic-we are being set up for failure."

And in all the years I have been in education, I have had the privilege of working with some exceptional educators whom not once backed away from the challenges. The most skilled have taken whatever challenges have been laid before them and searched out more effective teaching strategies; taken mundane or mandated programs and made them exciting and fun; were eager to collaborate with colleagues and explore the most effective means to get results; took uderserved groups of children and helped them thrive; and, while doing all of that, had a lot of fun because teaching is their passion.

HOW TO LEAVE A LOT OF CHILDREN BEHIND:

• Use excuse after excuse for why cannot educate students effectively
• Complain to every one you meet about being set up for failure
• Use emotion and feelings about testing to lead your instruction and obsess about the standardized tests
• Network with all of the other negative educators-misery loves company

HOW TO THRIVE AS AN EDUCATOR:

• Focus on the students' time with you in school-not out of school
• Quit vocalizing excuses and increase your knowledge on research-based strategies and how to become a more effective educator
• Get support from a coach or consultant to help you through your challenges and improve your knowledge as a professional
• Attend quality professional development that you can use immediately
• Research the positive outcomes and programs from grants funded by NCLB (See NVReadingFirst )
• Start networking with positive, collaborative, and most importantly, professional educators; trust me, their energy and passion is contagious
• Remember to do what you love, focus on student growth and keep in mind that educating will always be very challenging, but oh, so rewarding!

By: Kristen Gonzales
Educational coach, consultant and literacy coordinator
http://www.elevateme.net

San Francisco Supervisor Sandoval proposed a resolution condemning Michael Savage. Savage a radio talk show personality has a talk format show that regularly presents political opinion on far ranging subjects. The resolution seeks to condemn and raise a public outcry against Savage because of his political opinions.

Savage commented on a group of 35 student protestors who are fasting in protest and to pressure congressmen to renew efforts to pass a bill providing financial aid to illegal undocumented immigrant students. The bill was defeated recently. At least two of the protestors, self described illegal undocumented immigrant students, Cesar Chavez and Nallei Sandoval are openly participating in the protest.

Savage suggested the protestors, “fast until they starve to death". This statement has given rise to the call for his firing, and censor by the San Francisco Supervisors. In Part the resolution they are seeking to pass states, the county values the dignity of its residents regardless of immigration status, free from discrimination, to live in safety. The Resolution condemns Savage, and supports the students seeking to obtain public aid.

Broadcast radio shows fall into a type of speech protected by the first amendment. The attempt to censor Savage if it is contested in court will most certainly be found as protected speech. Savage's words did not advocate violent acts, nor suggest anyone take part in any acts or actions to bring about death by starvation. The words are politically motivated satire that state how Savage felt about the protest. To suggest he has advocated any illegal activity is absurd.

To raise his words to the level of racist statements you would have to show he has defamed a protected minority group. A group of persons who fall into the classification as undocumented immigrants does not meet the test. His words can not be demonstrated to defame any protected minority such as Hispanics, blacks or other protected minority group. Since undocumented immigrants could be any person not a documented immigrant the class is not protected.

Prohibitions of politically motivated speech are not favored by Supreme Court decisions. Generally this form of speech is protected. In one case the Supreme Court of the United States ruled against a criminal ordinance. The city’s bias-motivated crime ordinance, interpreted as banning the use of fighting words known to offend on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, or gender, but not on such other possible bases as political affiliation, union membership, or homosexuality, was invalidated for its content discrimination. ''The First Amendment does not permit [the city] to impose special prohibitions on those speakers who express views on disfavored subjects.''

Once the rhetoric has died down the actions by the San Francisco Supervisors certainly be labeled as an attempt to stifle and muffle protected political speech. These actions by a government body should be condemned and protested for the frightening steps toward a totalitarian government control of public political activity.

By: Lou Tompkins
www.loutompkins.com