Archive for July, 2012

How many millions of people total listen to conservative talk radio and/or conservative cable news?

Is there a link with reliable information on how many people listen/watch Rush, Sean, Glenn, Savage, Malkin, Ingraham, etc?

The total listeners would be pretty hard to calculate, because it is safe to assume that many of the talk shows you mentioned have the same listeners throughout the day. But to give you one source, Arbitron ratings are one of the standards for determining audience size. The 2005 ratings for the Rush Limbaugh Show had a minimum weekly audience of 13.5 million.

20 comments - What do you think?
Posted by mark - July 31, 2012 at 10:43 pm

Categories: Conservative News   Tags:

Groundswell of Asbestos Risks And Mesothelioma Lawsuits in California

In today’s era of information, most people are well aware of the dangers that asbestos pose. Factories, refineries, automotive companies, and construction sites are the leaders of Mesothelioma risks and asbestos exposure.

There are numerous asbestos-related risks and Mesothelioma risk factors lingering around California that have little to do with factories and labor companies. Asbestos has been brought back to the forefront of health concerns despite tougher asbestos laws. As if asbestos laden debris isn’t enough of an insult, asbestos is being released through the vast amounts of construction occurring in the many areas of California, including Richmond and Oakland.

Despite the asbestos reform laws in the early eighties due to the risk of Mesothelioma, this fire resistant material is still used in modern day construction as a cost effective, safety conscious building material. Though asbestos is used in lower concentrations because of its very obvious links to mesothelioma, it is still far from being outlawed as it should be.

Residents in Richmond, California and the surrounding Bay Area are at a very high risk for current asbestos exposure and later cases of Mesothelioma. With percentages of older homes, businesses, and buildings carrying high levels of asbestos, a mesothelioma case is simply waiting to happen. Add that exposure to the high exposure rate that the new construction has brought, and somebody really needs to take a long hard look at what the potential fallout may very well end up meaning.

The government itself certainly has knowledge of the Mesothelioma risk and the asbestos exposure. Legislation is hanging in the balance to determine that those who were exposed to asbestos and are likely to contract Mesothelioma later in life are not going to be permitted to file Mesothelioma lawsuits. The government is trying to state that while they are well aware of the risk of future Mesothelioma cases, they are trying to deny the people their right to medical and legal claims associated with Mesothelioma.

The government claims that they are willing to set aside funds that will allow Mesothelioma claimants to file for medical coverage if they meet stringent guidelines concerning asbestos exposure and Mesothelioma contraction. This is a phenomenal slap in the face to those who were unknowingly exposed to asbestos and the threat of Mesothelioma. The government can’t even ensure that social security funds will be available in twenty to thirty years, not to mention that hands down, private health care is far and above government health care.

This new law would of course not be surprising. Ample laws have been passed protecting the government and businesses from worker claims. Mesothelioma laws have already hit governmental facilities as well in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and a few Midwestern states. These laws prohibit workers from suing their companies, provided their companies pay for their medical expenses which are deemed “necessary.” These laws will leave Mesothelioma and other health care choices in the hands of the insurance companies and do not provide for various other financial liabilities which are bound to occur when Mesothelioma creates symptoms bad enough that the injured party can no longer hold gainful employment.

Louisiana legislation was enacted after lawmakers were petitioned by companies who were sued by healthy claimants after selling asbestos laden fill dirt to homeowners who were rebuilding after Hurricane Katrina. The contractor who sold this fill dirt was successfully sued for the risk that the exposure to the asbestos presented to the homeowners and their families. In a time when Mesothelioma is well enough understood to be rightfully feared, the contractors had the responsibility to their own welfare and the welfare of others to be sure their product was clean of asbestos.
These types of lawsuits serve a greater purpose than providing future financial relief for families who were exposed to asbestos and placed at risk for future cases of mesothelioma. Mesothelioma settlements such as these send a very clear message that the public is tired of being placed at risk for dangers that can be prevented. The governmental stance on this lawsuit allows for companies to increase their levels of irresponsible exposure while undermining the value of the worker. Mesothelioma is a virtual death sentence, and by allowing companies to abandon Mesothelioma victims, it creates a further risk for everyone.

Substantial mesothelioma settlements and awards are necessary to keep companies accountable and within the bounds of human expectation.

Nick Johnson

38 comments - What do you think?
Posted by mark - July 23, 2012 at 7:37 pm

Categories: Government Reform   Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

A Brief Guide To 21 English Bible Translations

There are so many translations available today that it can be quite confusing? Which are the best ones? Are some inaccurate? Is “older” always better?” Or maybe “newer” is preferred!

I’ve tried to summarize twenty-one of the most popular ones below. (There are many others out there.) I’ve also included some editorial comments from time to time that may point out strengths and weaknesses. I hope this is a help to you. God bless you as you study His Word!

1. Amplified Bible (AMP)

The Amplified Bible was the first Bible project of The Lockman Foundation. It attempts to take both word meaning and context into account in order to accurately translate the original text from one language into another. The Amplified Bible does this through the use of explanatory alternate readings and amplifications to assist the reader in understanding what Scripture really says. Multiple English word equivalents to each key Hebrew and Greek word clarify and amplify meanings that may otherwise have been concealed by the traditional translation method.

2. American Standard Version (ASV)

Published in 1901, the American Standard Version was produced as a revision to the King James Version.

3. Contemporary English Version (CEV)

Uncompromising simplicity marked the American Bible Society’s translation of the Contemporary English Version Bible that was first published in 1995. The text is easily read by grade schoolers, second language readers, and those who prefer the more contemporized form. The CEV is not a paraphrase. It is an accurate and faithful translation of the original manuscripts.

4. Darby Translation (DARBY)

First published in 1890 by John Nelson Darby, an Anglo-Irish Bible teacher associated with the early years of the Plymouth Brethren. Darby also published translations of the Bible in French and German.

5. English Standard Version (ESV)

The English Standard Version stands in the classic mainstream of English Bible translations over the past half-millennium. In that stream, faithfulness to the text and vigorous pursuit of accuracy were combined with simplicity, beauty, and dignity of expression. Our goal has been to carry forward this legacy for a new century.

To this end each word and phrase in the ESV has been carefully weighed against the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, to ensure the fullest accuracy and clarity and to avoid under-translating or overlooking any nuance of the original text. The words and phrases themselves grow out of the Tyndale-King James legacy, and most recently out of the RSV, with the 1971 RSV text providing the starting point for our work.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: Even though many conservative scholars have found inaccuracies in the orginal RSV, those problems were corrected in the ESV translation. It is one of the best modern translations available today.]

6. Good News Translation (GNT)

The Good News Translation, formerly called the Good News Bible or Today’s English Version was first published as a full Bible in 1976 by the American Bible Society as a “common language” Bible. It is a clear and simple modern translation that is faithful to the original Hebrew, Koine Greek and Aramaic texts. The GNT is a highly-trusted version.

7. Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)

The Bible is God’s inspired word, inerrant in the original manuscripts. It is the only means of knowing God’s plan of salvation and His will for our lives. It is the only hope and answer for a rebellious, searching world. Bible translation, both a science and an art, is a bridge that brings God’s word from the ancient world to the world today.

8. King James Version (KJV)

In 1604, King James I of England authorized that a new translation of the Bible into English be started. It was finished in 1611, just 85 years after the first translation of the New Testament into English appeared (Tyndale, 1526). The Authorized Version, or King James Version, quickly became the standard for English-speaking Protestants.

9. 21st Century King James Version (KJ21)

The 21st Century King James Version of the Holy Bible (KJ21®) is an updating of the 1611 King James Version (KJV). It is not a new translation, but a careful updating to eliminate obsolete words by reference to the most complete and definitive modern American dictionary, the Webster’s New International Dictionary, Second Edition, unabridged. Spelling, punctuation, and capitalization have also been updated.

What has been historically known as Biblical English has been retained in this updating. It is readily distinguished from the colloquial language of commerce and the media used in contemporary Bible translations.

All language relating to gender and theology in the King James Version remains unchanged from the original.

10. The Message (MSG)

Why was The Message written? The best answer to that question comes from Eugene Peterson himself: “While I was teaching a class on Galatians, I began to realize that the adults in my class weren’t feeling the vitality and directness that I sensed as I read and studied the New Testament in its original Greek. Writing straight from the original text, I began to attempt to bring into English the rhythms and idioms of the original language. I knew that the early readers of the New Testament were captured and engaged by these writings and I wanted my congregation to be impacted in the same way. I hoped to bring the New Testament to life for two different types of people: those who hadn’t read the Bible because it seemed too distant and irrelevant and those who had read the Bible so much that it had become ‘old hat.'”

11. New American Standard Bible (NASB)

While preserving the literal accuracy of the 1901 ASV, the New American Stand Bible has sought to render grammar and terminology in contemporary English. Special attention has been given to the rendering of verb tenses to give the English reader a rendering as close as possible to the sense of the original Greek and Hebrew texts. This translation has earned the reputation of being the most accurate English Bible translation.

12. The NET Bible (NET)

The NET Bible is a completely new translation of the Bible with 60,932 translators’ notes! It was completed by more than 25 scholars – experts in the original biblical languages – who worked directly from the best currently available Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts.

13. New Century Version (NCV)

This translation of God’s Word was made from the original Hebrew and Greek languages. The translation team was composed of the World Bible Translation Center and fifty additional, highly qualified and experienced Bible scholars and translators. Some had translation experience on the New International Version, the New American Standard, and the New King James Versions. The third edition of the United Bible Societies’ Greek text, the latest edition of Biblia Hebraica and the Septuagint were among texts used.

14. New International Version (NIV)

The New International Version is a translation made by more than one hundred scholars working from the best available Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts. It was conceived in 1965 when, after several years of study by committees from the Christian Reformed Church and the National Association of Evangelicals, a trans-denominational and international group of scholars met at Palos Heights, Illinois, and agreed on the need for a new translation in contemporary English.

15. New International Reader’s Version (NIrV)

The New International Reader’s Version is a new Bible version based on the New International Version (NIV). The NIV is easy to understand and very clear. More people read the NIV than any other English Bible. We made the NIrV even easier to read and understand. We used the words of the NIV when we could. Sometimes we used shorter words. We explained words that might be hard to understand. We made the sentences shorter.

We did some other things to make the NIrV a helpful Bible version for you. For example, sometimes a Bible verse quotes from another place in the Bible. When that happens, we put the other Bible book’s name, chapter and verse right there. We separated each chapter into shorter sections. We gave a title to almost every chapter. Sometimes we even gave a title to the shorter sections. That will help you understand what each chapter or section is all about.

16. New Jerusalem Bible (NJB)

The New Jerusalem Bible is a 1985 revision of the older Jerusalem Bible (JB). The JB was translated from the original languages, but it developed out of a popular French translation done in Jerusalem, which is why it was called the Jerusalem Bible. The NJB, like the JB before it, is known for its literary qualities. While the JB tended to more meaning-based (or functional equivalent), the NJB has moved toward more of a word-based (or formal equivalent) translation.

17. New King James Version (NKJV)

Commissioned in 1975 by Thomas Nelson Publishers, 130 respected Bible scholars, church leaders, and lay Christians worked for seven years to create a completely new, modern translation of Scripture, yet one that would retain the purity and stylistic beauty of the original King James Version. With unyielding faithfulness to the original Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic texts, the translatiors applies the most recent research in archaelology, linguistics, and textual studies.

18. New Living Translation (NLT)

The goal of any Bible translation is to convey the meaning of the ancient Hebrew and Greek texts as accurately as possible to the modern reader. The New Living Translation is based on the most recent scholarship in the theory of translation. The challenge for the translators was to create a text that would make the same impact in the life of modern readers that the original text had for the original readers. In the New Living Translation, this is accomplished by translating entire thoughts (rather than just words) into natural, everyday English. The end result is a translation that is easy to read and understand and that accurately communicates the meaning of the original text.

19. New Revised Standard Version (NSRV)

The NRSV translation has been rightly labeled “An Ecumenical Edition,” that has been widely used by both Protestant and Catholic worshippers since 1990.

20. Revised Standard Version (RSV)

Published in 1952, the Revised Standard Version of the Bible is an authorized revision of the American Standard Version. It seeks to preserve all that is best in the English Bible as it has been known and used through the years. It is intended for use in public and private worship, not merely for reading and instruction. [EDITOR’S NOTE: Many conservative scholars have found inaccuracies in the translation work in the RSV.]

21. Today’s New International Version (TNIV)

The Today’s New International Version is a thoroughly accurate, fully trustworthy Bible text built on the rich heritage of the New International Version (NIV). In fact, this contemporary language version incorporates the continuing work of the Committee on Bible Translation (CBT), the translators of the NIV, since the NIV’s last update in 1984.

In translating the NIV, the CBT held to certain goals: that it be an Accurate, Beautiful, Clear, and Dignified translation suitable for public and private reading, teaching, preaching, memorizing, and liturgical use. The translators were united in their commitment to the authority and infallibility of the Bible as God’s Word in written form. They agreed that faithful communication of the meaning of the original writers demands frequent modifications in sentence structure (resulting in a “thought-for-thought” translation) and constant regard for the contextual meanings of words.

Glenn Christianson

11 comments - What do you think?
Posted by mark - July 22, 2012 at 7:27 pm

Categories: Conservative Studies   Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

What political party would the Founding Fathers be considered by today’s standards?

This is NOT a homework question so don’t treat it like one. Just out of curiosity would the Founding Fathers be Republicans or Democrats, conservatives or liberals?

The founding fathers were very conservative, they would never approve of liberal policies

24 comments - What do you think?
Posted by mark - July 21, 2012 at 6:55 pm

Categories: Founding Fathers   Tags:

Why Civil War is Second American Revolution?

No doubt that the real meaning of the Civil War is completely different from the one we are used to. Civil War is called the Second American Revolution by some great historians. The term “Second American Revolution” was first used by Charles and Mary Beard about seventy years ago when describing the American Civil War. Only after everything was settled about the reunion and reconciliation, after the construction of monuments were completed, after all the veterans were satisfied, when most of the emotions were dull the Civil War could have been viewed from another prospective, the logical prospective that could easily point out “that armed conflict had been only one phase of the cataclysm, a transitory phase; that at bottom the so-called Civil War, or the War between the States … was a social war, ending in the unquestioned establishment of a new power in the government, making vast changes in the arrangement of classes, in the accumulation and distribution of wealth, in the course of industrial development, and in the Constitution inherited from the Fathers.”

Over the years the term “Second American Revolution” has been viewed differently by different parties. The historians of the Civil War Era always had difficulties with accepting this term. In any case, Civil War greatly changed the sense of balance of political power between North and South and significantly speeded up the appearance of industrial capitalism in the post-war period. Most historians see the abolishing of slavery in the South as the revolutionary result of the war. Another point of view is from people that lived through the war, they saw their struggle as revolutionary. People that lived in the South called their revolt a revolution against the tyranny regime of the North. Northerners, on the contrary, viewed their conflict as a struggle to keep the union, which was formed as the result of revolution against England, together. However, both sides viewed that war as the continuation of their fight for freedom that started in 1776.

The prominent historians Beards were very precise as to what they called a “revolution.” In 1940 Louis Hacker briefly summed up what later became recognized as the Hacker-Beard Thesis: “The American Civil War turned out to be a revolution indeed. But its striking achievement was the triumph of industrial capitalism. The industrial capitalist, through their political spokesmen, the Republicans, had succeeded in capturing the state and using it as an instrument to strengthen their economic position. It was no accident, therefore, that while the war was waged on the field and through Negro emancipation, in Congress’ halls the victory was made secure by the passage of tariff, banking, public-land, railroad, and contract labor legislation.”

Some famous historians and James McPherson occasionally talk of Abraham Lincoln’s “Second American Revolution” (the title of one of McPherson’s books). They are absolutely correct to describe Lincoln as a revolutionary, however, the explanations they present to support this point of view are not fully complete. It is true that Lincoln led a revolution, but it was an anti-American revolution against nearly all the founding values of the country. It was a revolution against: free-market capitalism (Lincoln was a committed mercantilist); the principles of the Declaration of Independence; the Constitution; the system of states’ rights and federalism that was created by the founders; and the prohibitions against waging war on civilians embodied in the international law of the time as well as the canons of Western Christian civilization. Lincoln through all of his life never believed in equality of all races. He always viewed whites as the superior race. Maybe he wanted all races to be equal but not in the U.S. Lincoln is thought to save the union, however, it was only geographically, he destroyed it philosophically, and the union was not voluntary anymore. Lincoln eviscerated constitutional liberties in the North, which permanently weakened the constitutional protections of liberty for all Americans.

Despite all of the arguing of prominent historians, the fact continues to be revealed as the history moves up but at the same time it sort of steps back away in history. I think, it is an individual right for everyone to view the Civil War as the Second American Revolution or not. Each generation will reason and view this event differently, according to background and political views.

Jeff Stats

37 comments - What do you think?
Posted by mark - July 15, 2012 at 5:17 pm

Categories: Founding Fathers   Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Bill Maher vs Bill O’Reilly Conservative Party Strengths

Maher accuses Conservatives of attacking John Kerry’s war record, when Bush’s war record is “indefensible” (i.e.: in 1972, Bush was assigned to Texas Air National Guard Tactical Reconnaissance Squadron in Montgomery. Brigadier General William Turnispeed says he never showed up. Bush then lied about this in his book, A Charge to Keep Up, by saying he served in the Air National Guard until 1973.) Maher then comments on how the Conservative media covered the Sandy Berger fiasco more closely than the “We attacked the wrong country” incident. Maher argues that “the Republicans are better at it”, and “that’s why they win”, even though they are just as scandalous as liberals. O’Reilly says that if Bush was as bad as Maher says he is, then his approval ratings would be lower. Maher counters that Carter’s reelection race was close until the last week, even though Carter faced many problems similar to Bush (all of which Maher lists). They then argue about the interests of President Bush. Maher says, “sold out the interests of the common man for his friends in big business.” O’Reilly tangents about education, trying to say that if Bush didn’t care about the common man, he wouldn’t try so hard to educate him. O’Reilly concedes that Bush’s base is businessmen. Maher defends Clinton’s lack of substantial lying, while O’Reilly leaves facts and moves on to opinionated propaganda. Maher tries to says that Bush is using the treasury to fund his reelection, and O’Reilly oversimplifies by saying it’s because of the war. Maher then states all of the actual, wasteful spending Bush has done to secure the interests of key groups in his reelection. Maher is taken aback by O’Reilly’s oversimplification of the difference in Presidential candidates during the 2004 debates. O’Reilly yells about the income tax on the rich, and how Maher pays this tax, and Maher tries to make the point that he “would gladly give it back”. Although neither side loses steam, O’Reilly is the first to yell, and the first to throw propaganda without backing it up with evidence or facts. Although this is not a bright moment for either, Maher comes out stronger due to his ability to think through what he wants to say instead of just yelling his basic opinion.

Duration : 0:7:7

Read more…

68 comments - What do you think?
Posted by mark - July 13, 2012 at 5:09 pm

Categories: Conservative Party   Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Next Page »