A good friend of mine has started a blog called, "The Bible and the Briar." He's a Conservative Christian with a good grasp on theology and politics. I recommend that you hop over and check out what he has to say.
As for me, this past month has been... interesting. I wrote before about the confrontation with a liberal. He later apologized and claimed that he was drunk at the time. He seems to be trying to make amends, but also has a knack for slamming conservatives whenever possible. As I've discovered how impossible it is to talk to the man, I just let his comments roll of my back. I actually feel sorry for him and the many others of like mind. They have no clue that they're wrong. They have huge hearts, but its all misplaced.
Speaking of which, as you previously noticed from my last posting, the liberals are out in force making free comedies for the rest of us to enjoy. When I first saw the chanting video on YouTube, I kept thinking about how much this reminded me of a scene in "An American Carol." I loaded up the movie, and there, in an almost perfect mirror example, was a scene where a crowd of American young adults mindlessly repeated liberal lines through robotic chanting. There is of course the laughable chant, "What does nefarious mean?" but it suffices to point out a truth - these kids really have no clue what they're protesting. They've listened to their leftist teachers (authority figures) demean capitalism for so long, that they strongly believe that it is the reason America is failing. They have no idea that its actually leftist policies that have put this nation into its current, dreadful, situation. There has to be some way of reaching them, I just have yet to figure out how. Its difficult battling an indoctrination that has consumed the majority of their young lives.
And then there is the debate surrounding Amanda Knox and the verdict of "not guilty." I read WorldNet Daily every morning and stumbled upon an article by Ilana Mercer called "America's angelic OJ" where she crucifies Knox. Not having the ability to keep my opinions to myself, I posted a comment as to where I basically stated that I am unsure at this point if Knox is guilty. I gave a few reasons why and also pointed out that this is not a mirror Simpson case. Obviously, I did not make any friends with that post. So, for any others who have come here to find out if I'm a "clueless liberal" or not (as one commenter said), let me give you some reasons as to why I'm unsure. Yes, I know the first trial ended up with a conviction, yet the second trial seemed to be about sloppy investigative work by the police force and questionable evidence. If the initial investigation itself was sloppy, that puts the evidence and police account of the murder into the realm of the "very questionable." In the article referenced above, Mercer gave a list of "facts" that were discovered during the investigation. She also proceeded to label Knox as a "sex addict." In regards to her being a sex addict or not, I have no clue. But having that addiction does not automatically encourage or lead one to commit murder. As well, if the investigation itself was sloppy, how reliable are those "hard and fast facts" that Mercer referred to?
In the end, the jury found Knox "not guilty" based upon the testimonies and evidences submitted during the trial. Some articles have reported that a few jurors had tears pouring down afterwords. Now unlike Mercer and quite a few others, I do not believe for one second that the jury was influenced by "the American government, a media blitz, and or big business." It makes no logical sense as to why an Italian jury would wish to overturn the conviction of an American simply to please various sects of a society foreign to them. One or two maybe, but not the entire jury. Believing otherwise colors both America and the jurists themselves in a dark and mistrustful light. I am not prepared to do so.
It is also a great injustice to compare the jurists with those of OJ Simpson when he was acquitted. The Simpson jury overwhelmingly voted "not guilty" purely based upon his race and a desire to "get even" with the white man. It was social justice during its finest hours. As such, there can be no honest comparison between the two.
The key issue appears to me to be one of elevated emotional responses. The murder of Meredith Kercher was a heinous act. Thus, both sides of this case have been electrically charged. I truly believe what we are witnessing in this instance are emotional outbursts more than anything else. Since I am not influenced as such, perhaps that is why I view things differently.
On the other hand, I am not a supporter of Knox. I am not trying to advocate for her innocence, nor portray her in any other light what so ever. I simply am unsure as to what the truth really is. She was convicted at the first trial, yet set free after the appeal. I've read that the Italian prosecution is seeking to appeal the "innocent" verdict. Perhaps during the third trial, the truth will be finally known.
Until then, I remain unconvinced as to her guilt or innocence.
Ok, on to one other matter: I really have been trying to get back to the examination of Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" and hope to have something up this week.