We live in a cloak and dagger world where the news is owned by people with a vested interest in what the public get to hear and see. It has been very little more than 'propaganda' for so long, that we are completely unaware of the real issues. France 24 and RT obviously still have a particular way of presenting these issues, but neither 'dumb down' the issues.
(Just to say I watched a documentary on huge news corporations in america on RT. It was describing how badly the American Public are served by their broadcasting and newspapers).
Both France24 and RT have very good interviews with people who have a real personal grasp of their subjects. However it is still important to view exactly where the interviewee is coming from, and note the direction of the interview led by the host. It's the questions and direction that is important. It is never the answer, so much as the question that gives a hint to intent.
The interview last night was about the problems created by American zionists that have an inordinate noose around the political process regarding the Israel-Palestine reconcilliation process. I read a couple of articles on the zionist movement on wickipedia, but I didn't realise that there is such a strong cohort of pressure within the american political process made up of both christian and jewish zionists. This reminds me of the old saying 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'.
I don't think God would endorse this grab for power and the taking of land by force. Israel is a spiritual home for all three Abramic faiths. We all have our roots in the word of God given to Moses. Like a trefoil, we are banded through in our joint owning to this work of redemption. Islam and Christianity manifest either side of Judaism as the central pivot (for want of a better expression).
I was aghast that the stronger party that places this burden of zionist agenda came from a majority of christian fundamentalists who think that the second coming of Jesus will not happen until all of the land is owned by a 'State of Israel'. This seems a particularily warped and even 'satanic' concept of what the landscape of a peaceful homeland of spiritual diversity should look like. No wonder it all looks like a warground on the news footage.
It would be interesting to know how closely this coalition of wealthy people who have such a sway over the political agenda and foreign policy of the USA has been functioning. I think in all probability since the beginning of the zionist movement, and it has grown to a carnivourous raptor within the corridoors of power. It seems to have it's jaws firmly locked around the presidential jugular.
I don't even expect to comprehend the complexities or means that this has been achieved, but it does make me think that this is an endemic within the whole western political process, over every issue that is swayed by the funding of political nominees.
I found myself looking at the Richard Dawkins Foundation site, RDFRS US | UK
To be honest, I don't see anything more than the same beast with a different head here. A gathering of the dissafected into another movement with a political agenda.
I love both science and theology. The tension between our knowledge of the empirical world we come to understand through science, and the counterbalance of our desire, our innate human need to experience transcendence of a purely material 'nuts and bolts' world.
This is an individual quest for perspective in my understanding, rather than a systemised totalitarian demand that our thinking and feeling should not be allowed natural conflicts between instinct and reason.
It is when these systemised forms of view have political motives that the problems manifest themselves. I would prefer any politician who can give an account of their religious position and how this affects their social judgement, whatever their faith or denomination. There is certainly nothing wrong with having a moral awareness steming from the core of respected faiths and doctrines which encompass social justice. That there are safeguards in place within political systems, that mean this is not simply a smokescreen for politicalised religeous agenda seems an important distinction.
Perhaps it isn't so much the machine of the political structure, rather than the ability of non elected groups (religeous or otherwise) with their own political agenda, and financial 'clout' to hold the political process to ransom that is the problem.
My own sense of propriety finds this intervention unacceptable. It would be so much better to have a level playing field for every politician to be genuinely voted for by the people, and to know that these elected representitives are not simply then blackmailed into inaction on such important issues by those who have funded their campaigns. I think this is something that happens in every government, not just America.
It would seem so much better if politicians were given a specified amount at each election from a public fund to run their campaign. That this fund be genuinely made available at each stage of the election process, from public funds, rather than from fundraising, and political donations.
I see no reason as to why politicians are not paid directly from public funds, and that they are held accountable to the voting public and their use of this account be monitored and audited. Genuine elections that fulfill the high moral standards of real democracy and not to behind the smoke of corporate sponsorship.
There is now a rejection of the cloak and dagger 'democratic' political machinery by the populous. We are the people who depend on correct unbiased political judgement, for the protection of good governance that makes the country stable in it's economic and social political agenda. Obviously in the Channel Islands, we are a small populous, but this is what happens here. The candidates get alloted a sum of money to run their campaign. At the moment their posters are being defaced with mostaches, eyebrows and comments.
This bit of artwork is what freedom truly means! Depending on who gets caught doing this, it could be any number of possibilities of intent. a) bored youths. b) actual public ridicule. c) a genuine 'fed up with it' attitude from the general populous that we have to put up with a rash of posters that are not removed promptly after the elections. No one would get put in gaol! This would not be seen as a threat to society, or more than a prank. This would be a matter for the Parsh Honorary police force to sort out! Someone would get a severe ticking off and a fine if they were caught. Probably on the same level as not picking up your own dog's poo in a public place!
I am privilaged to live in the Channel Islands. We do not have party politics. We are just about to have a major election and each candidate has to stand or fall on their own past contribution, and personal manifesto. We may moan and grumble, but we do have a real vote. We may end up with a lot of prevaricating on the benches through personal agendas and frankly, over inflated egos.
We would like to see better debating, faster resolutions, and some more action on pressing matters, but generally speaking we have a lot more 'real' politics than anywhere else I know of. For the most part our island is goverened by ordinary people doing their best to manage our economic and social life. I wouldn't change this structure, although there are always reforms that will need to be made in order to keep it relevent to it's purpose. If it was static, our political process would not serve it's function.
Perhaps these political experiments where the machinery of government becomes so huge, such as the EU, and the USA, the real impetus of local self determination has become the casualty. I do think that for the European situation I would vote for a return of the 70's style union, rather than a centralised government that tries to make each country conform to an inapropriate level of laws and structure that is not suited for it. However the Channel Islands are not part of the EU, as we are not allowed to work in European countries. We do have to abide by the laws of the EU though! (All a bit too complicated to explain).
Just as a for instance, we were enjoying our French Twinning weekend with Quimper, and we were visiting and walking with our French friends to local landmarks, and places of interest followed by lunch at a lovely pub yesterday. I expected not to be able to take the dog into the restaurant, but to be told I could not sit and eat anywhere outside on the pub premises either was realy over the top. I could sit on a bench in the car park and have a drink by the roadside with the dog, but I could not eat if she was with me.
It was uncommonly hot (the hottest October on record so far) and I was not prepared to put my dog in the car. The only thing I could do was take her home while we had lunch and fetch her afterwards.
Is it realy acceptable that we must have these kind of laws made for us by the governance of Europe? is there such a genuine health and safety issue of sitting ouside with a dog under the table while I eat? I don't put my dog outside while I am eating at home!
Will this be the next directive? that I may not allow my dog to jump on the sofa in my own house! Where are our freedoms to enjoy living dissapearing to? (Fat chance of tryin to get her to do otherwise, she is too quick
I did not argue or feel angry with the waitress, she has to comply with these directives. It was a huge inconvenience, that I decided not to allow to spoil my enjoyment of a wonderful day. I miss the freedom to simply enjoy life without petty rules that are not appropriate for general implimentation. Surely it is up to the owner of a pub, or premise to decide if they will make an exception to a house rule on occasion, rather than have to impliment an unreasonable directive from an impersonal governing body.
Think of the money this beaurocracy costs!
Had a good waffle today, this subject is so difficult to get my head round.