Recently, I went on a rare visit to the cinema to see, Pride & Glory. I only wanted to see this because Edward Norton was in it. I admit I knew nothing about the film before I went into the hall.

The film was well produced but the storyline was nothing new. It showed no imagination to the story or the script. I also thought Edward Norton was a bit lost in this film. I think he is better with unusual storylines/environments/historical pieces. But that is besides the point of this post.

The film actually had a part where it was presented too realistically. One actor was supposed to be threatening to put a steaming hot iron on a baby's face, so burning its skin. The storyline didn't let it happen, but the camera did show the iron, steam and all, hovering just above the baby's head, and the baby was clearly crying. I am sure that a good director would have been able to indicate what was to happen without going this far if that had been desired but the urge to show realism overrode what should have been a shot relying on the viewer's imagination to fill in the missing pieces.

For some years I have realised that art has become very practical, but also lacked any originality that made people say, that is really good. Ordinary modern art is so unexciting that I find it impossible to look at, and the desire to put in computer graphics where it would be difficult to present the ideas, and require a lot of imaginative, innovative, thinking to encourage the viewer to put in the missing visual data, is being lost. Imagination, is disappearing from our lives!

I am sick of realism. I would like more fantasy, but not so called insulting, stupid humour, or violent action films, or sexuallly explicit visualisations. I am not interested in learning more about other people's way of life as so much of the world is beginning to look and act the same that when you have seen how one person lives in a country you have seen all that is required to understand life. Things are becoming too standardised, and to limited in their configuration, making life lacking in originality, eccentricy, imagination, and the magical awe inspiring quality that used to exist not so long ago.

If we are not encouraged to use our imagination in truly innovative ways that are successful in making people smile, laugh, enjoy the message, then we have failed as a society, and are losing the skill of developing imagination.

I came out of the that cinema let down, even though I know the film was well produced and acted. Something was lacking, and that is the thing that makes a piece of art stand out from the rest, the imaginative view that is both unusual and eccentric. It is a given that the piece of art should be technically excellent in its creation, but there are so many pieces of art that for something to be awe-inspiring it needs that extra something, that originality, that special quality that doesn't insult, doesn't ridicule, doesn't violate the beauty of life, which today does happen, all too frequently.

Imagination is in the mind of the beholder, and the artist, can we recapture it? I would like to think so.

I have found this article, which may be of interest, if it hasn't already been presented on TDG.

It refers to some people believing that the junk DNA (95%) is not junk, but actuallly part of a computer language, similar to that of a hologram.

Make what you like of the claims, but I have to admit that in the past I have suggested we are living in a computer virtual reality, and that there is something outside of this universe with which we can communicate. Perhaps this article can support such an idea.

http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Fr...

Fear is a human trait that has proved itself over the millennia. Back in ancient times when people were trying to survive they often used fear as a means of ensuring they checked their actions, motive, abilities, before committing themselves to a specific, often dangerous, act.

However, like all emotions, too much of this emotion can render a person incapable, and a nervous wreck! We begin to doubt if we are right to even contemplate certain actions; we allow our fears to override our need to carry out a specific task; we lose confidence in the whole issue, and in ourselves. In short, we become incapable of doing anything often resulting in others having to do the action for us.

Fear is the opposite of confidence. When afraid people feel they are wrong to even try to do something, yet when feeling confident they will boldly go whist others show fear. We all tend to think of confidence as something we should all possiess, but if we do show confidence are we right to do so? Could fear be a means of preventing us becoming too confident and so in the end destroying ourselves?

I believe it can, but fear, like any emotion, has to be kept within certain boundaries. Too much fear and we are in danger of being held rigid and accomplishing nothing; too little fear and we are in danger of being arrogant, taking too many unnecessary risks, whilst also often deriding those who believe that caution should at least be listened to if not always followed.

Fear can be a great motivator, or a detrimental limiter.

Today, certainly in the UK, but I also think in many other parts of the world, we are all being encouraged to be afraid.

One obvious subject is terrorism, and the fear that it might strike any moment right next to us and kill us - but considering we are born to die we should be grateful for every day we are alive and accept whenever death comes, as it most certainly will one day.

Another aspect, within the UK at least, is the fear of something fatal happening to our children if we don't keep them safe and secure. We strap them into their high chairs, like prisoners; we stop them playing outside in the street in case they are run over by a car; we ferry them to school, many of them in cars, causing mayhem for the buses which are trying to run to timetable and invariably fail, making everyone else late for work or their appointments. The "school run" is a definite situation on my country's roads. Whenever it is half term at school the traffic on the roads is dramatically less, and when school starts again traffic almost grinds to a halt.

I read an article whereby a writer in a newspaper admitted that she had followed all the food scares so literally that she had decided, out of fear and in the interest of her children, banned certain ingredients such as fat and sugar from her their diet. She woke up to the fact that she had allowed fear to hurt her children rather than help them. One of them started to grab bars of fat from a shop shelf and gnawed at it. Another grabbed a sugar cube in a restaurant and started to eat it. She began to question her own motives and attitudes, and realised that she, like many other parents, had allowed their love for their children to stop them learning for themselves how to work out what food is best for them, and what they should do if danger should strike, Her article was an attempt to alert others to the fact that it is possible to be too afraid, and that this is just as dangerous and not being afraid enough, or being too arrogant adopting a "it'll never happen to me or mine" attitude.

Fear is a useful emotional tool, but like all tools, there are times and places when we should not use them but put them to one side until an appropriate time arises.

Do you know when to be afraid?

The word "plight" is one which has recently been brought to my notice via crosswords. We have all heard of "plight one's troth" which, in modern times, usually means that a person has agreed publicly to marry someone. But what does the word plight really mean? Apparently it has two different meanings. One is to publicly "pledge" to a commitment of some kind, which is not related to goods or property; some sort of promise to another person to do something. The other meaning of plight is related to a situation. We all know of the plight that someone is in, usually something dangerous. But apparently, in my very old dictionary this word can relate to any situation, good or bad, and often means "perpelexing", which is how the dangerous aspect comes about as a person in a perplexed state is often confused/uncertain how to proceed, and as such may not be aware of a danger ahead of them.

Troth is an alternative word for "truth". Betrothal, was always related to promising to marry, and it is the only form we ever use the word, troth, today. Whilst not a word ordinarily spoken and used, it nevertheless is often read in books which cover a historical period when betrothals were more common.

As for anomolous actions: how is it that (in the UK at least) ordinary people who seek work must go through a long complex "equal opportunities" procedure, even if you have already done the job but are subject to a "reorganisation" of the workforce (usually indicating a reduction in staff numbers) and must reapply for the job you have been doing, yet when it comes to the high flying top echelon of business/organisation they are "headhunted", that is sought specifically and offered terms to change allegiances even when the person isn't seeking work? (sorry for such a long sentence). But surely, ALL people should be subject to the same "equal opportunities" procedure? Why are the top personnel allowed to be treated differently? All people have skills that are sought. Surely, if you know how good someone is it should be possible to select the appropriate personnel from those who have already shown their aiblities? It will always remain an anomoly of attitude and thought to me.

Just a few points worth pondering upon.

Recently I created a blog entry regarding the Codex Alimentarius - the guidelines for countries worldwide to follow regarding food standards for the common people - and the changes which would give people less nutritional food!

I said at the time that I had seen only one article, in Nexus Magazine, that dealt with this, and that although other observations suggested this could have some grave truth within it I wanted some other confirmation information regarding this.

I have now found some sites which suggest that for some years this has been in progress.

http://www.wholetruthcoalition.org/2008/...

http://www.anhcampaign.org/files/080423-...

http://www.thenhf.com/health_freedom_new...

I suggest you read them, and make your own decision on the matter.

Carol Noble

Recently, I read a copy of Nexus Magazine, which originates from Australia and has some very interesting articles. I happen to subscribe to this magazine, as it is bi-monthly and I cannot afford much more.

There is a website but you usually have to pay/subscribe to it to get some of the latest articles. But there are some older articles which they do allow you to see.

In the most recent edition, there was an article about the The Codex Alimentarius. I admit I have never heard of this so just learning that such a thing existed was interesting in itself.

This is the global standards for food which practically all countries adhere to. There are several sites regarding this topic, but none give the slant that this article does.

The article claims that the big pharmaceutical companies are using these standards to change the perception of food in the mind of governments/business/customers alike. Up to now I have been unable to verify the author's claims, but I don't dismiss just because no-one has confirmed the ideas.

The author suggests that in future vitamens and minerals will be deemed "toxic" to the human body! That certain other ingredients which have been considered toxic in the past will be reintroduced and accepted instead.

Like it or not, there could be some sort of truth in this, although it could equally just be misinformation.

I am relating to the way certain ingredients in food have been slowly removed from our diet, under the auspices that there is too much in the processed foods in our diet which is dangerous. Whilst this can also be true, I feel that someone somewhere has been messing about with the truth somewhat.

There was an article in a paper recently whereby a woman journalist admitted that she had unwittingly been denying her children food which they needed. Salt and Fat have become untouchable ingredients in some people's minds, and she had removed ALL salt and fat from her children's diet. It may be possible for some adults to limit this intake substantially but growing children need these things, and apparently she realised when she saw her children grabbing blocks of fat from the supermarket shelves and trying to eat them, and also grabbing handfuls of salt from a cafe table and swallowing them. She decided to do more research and realised she had been unknowlingly depriving her children of vital ingredients for their well being and growth. She now has returned these things, modestly, into their diet and they are now feeling a lot better. I think this story shows how easy it is to be manipulated and brainwashed into believing some things.

I know that processed food is not as good as it used to be. In the UK unpasteurised milk is impossible to buy, yet it is said to be helpful towards relieving the symptoms of asthma and other health problems. Once milk is pasteurised it loses much of its goodness.

Whether the idea that the Nexus article's author holds is right or wrong, we should always be aware that such a thing is possible, and if you wanted to rid a large number of people from this planet just remove many of the ingredients from food/drink that are vital to a human's health and substitute them with toxic chemicals that kill. The question is, are the big pharmaceuticals capable and willing to do such a thing? I leave you to work out the answer.

Can someone please explain something for me?

The present credit crunch is global, and each country is trying to find a way out of the mess. It is said that the UK's PM, Gordon Brown, has suggested a method by which the taxpayer bails out the banks in the hope that they in turn will help improve the economic climate.

There are bilions of £ of taxpayers money going into the bail out however, if I remember rightly, to pay for the UK's ordinary benefit/social needs and general governing of basic societal needs, the UK has been borrowing billions from others, and the GDP has been rising year upon year for some time. This borrowing is no where near the amount being paid to the banks, so where is this money coming from? How is it that there is money paid by the tax payer for to bail out banks to the tune of exhorbitant amounts when the government had to borrow just to keep the country afloat and functioning?

Something is wrong here! Can anyone explain?

I would add that we are also supposed to be using the taxpayer to help fund the 2012 Olympics in London. Where is the money for that? Are we all going to have to have an even lower standard of living just to pay to keep these greedy bankers/city high flyers/politicians in the money?

I found this website link on Rense.com regarding 2012. It is actually very well presented and I want to thank the person concerned for this article.

http://www.infinitelymystical.com/essays...

I hope others find this also of interest. I cannot, at the moment find any other reference on TDG to this particular link so I have decided to give it here. If it has already been mentioned please forgive the repeat.

I have been very morbid and miserable of late in my posts, and I wondered if people would be prepared to cheer me up by telling me some (clean) jokes.

I admit I am terrible at remembering and telling jokes. I don't know why, but even one liners are lost within moments of hearting them!

A few nice cheering jokes would be welcome. Please give me something to laugh at for once!

Thanks in anticipation.

Today, yet another region of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, opted out of its residents paying for NHS prescriptions, yet still considers itself a part of the NHS (National Health Service).

Northern Ireland is the latest region, with Scotland and Wales having already opted out. England, however, is not just one region within the EU, but several, and the EU does not recognise England at all in any of its paperwork!!

The National Health Service began as a means of giving free treatment to those who were resident in this country in 1948 by the government of the day. In time, as businesses have tended to do, long names have been shorted to initials, or acronyms, but the initials still mean what they used to mean, and like it or not the only Nation today is the UNITED KINGDOM of GREAT BRITAIN, and NORTHERN IRELAND, or what is quaintly known as the UK.

Therefore, the nation in the NHS is the United Kingdom, and not just one small part of it!! But as the European Regions of the UK, also include three of the four ancient kingdoms of Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, far too many people have come to believe that the nation only applies to these areas, not the whole of the country.

With these areas opting out of the prescription fee for drugs, at present over £7 per item, it means that the people of the English regions are left paying for them all, and when Scotland first opted out, it was no surprise that the same this this occurred, the price of a prescription in England suddenly went up!

The EU wants only the regions of the UK to be recognised, and the UK becomes a member state of a much bigger country (federation of states), not a country in its own right! This problem with the NHS is just the start of a bigger regionalisation agenda, and our government is positively encouraging it without letting the people decide.

If the regions want to opt out of the prescription fee they should also opt out of ALL the NHS services as well, but they won't and the English are again the mugs, paying for everything and getting nothing in return.

We should protest, may be a call we would like to make, but the UK is now the most surveilled country in the EU and possibly the west, and if we even attempted to make a small quiet legal protest we would be stopped one way or another, through some form of politically correct dogma, or some obscure interpretation of the rules now in place.

This country is in a state of madness and there is no way I can think of which would enable decency and common sense to prevail. I remember a few years ago a law lord said that Common Sense no longer exists, as it means different things to different people. However, the definition of the word "common" means EVERYONE has the same idea/thought/attitude.

Yes, there are people who are at variance with others about specific ideas/concepts, but I think if everyone was asked what was important to them you would find that a lot of people had similar ideas and social concepts. But somehow, there appears to be a determined effort to show up the differences in people rather than the similarities, so encouraging disharmony instead of harmony.

I have often wondered if the way the British people banded together during WWII was considered a problem to those who seek world domination? All forms of methods are now being used to take away that unity, that common idea, and replace it with incompetent, disharmonious structures that destroy rather than support.

Perhaps I am being rather morbid and cynical, but it is the way I have been feeling for some time and it is clearly not an attitude that will disappear overnight. It is made worse by such crass decisions.statements as I have been describing above.

I would add, that earlier this year, during a serious flood in one part of this land, a man found himself trapped by the foot in a manhole drain where the cover was missing. People such as fireman, police, etc, came to see if they could rescue him, but they couldn't agree on what to do, and whilst they argued, the water rose higher and the man eventually drowned because he couldn't escape from the hole. And the people in authority watched, and no-one was held responsible!

Division, incompetence, and personal safety rules, hamper the saving of a life. Similar traits abound in the various organisations which make up the UK, and the life of the UK is being lost because no-one seems to know how to save it, or perhaps they are not bothered about saving it!

The United Kingdom is disappearing in a morass and is unlikely to rise again. The rise and fall of the UK is definitely on the way out of this world,