Thomas Merton as a Recovering Monk (?)

I doubt it, but like everyone, he suffered from spiritual diseases -- not like everyone, though, he spent many thousands of hours in prayer plumbing the depths of them. The result of that is sometimes striking passages in his work that seemingly could have only been written by someone recovering from an addiction. In many senses, he was.

"Everything hangs on the final issue, in the battle of life and death.Nothing is assured before hand, nothing is definitely certain. The issue is left to our own choice. But that is what constitutes the dark terror of the agonia: we cannot be sure of our own choice. Are we strong enough to go on choosing life when to live means going and on on with this absurd battle of entity and nonentity within our inmost selves?"

"For a man to be alive, he must ... think intelligently ... (H)e must direct his actions by free decisions made in the light of his own thinking."

"In a word, for a man to live, he has to become wholly and entirely alive. He has to be all life, in his body, his senses, his mind and his will."

"We often see people who are said to be "bursting with life" and who, in fact, are simply wrestling with their own incoherence... Those who are bursting with life are often merely plunging into death with an enormous splash. They donot transcend death, they surrender to it with so much animal vitality that they are able to drag many others with them into the abyss."

"In those who are most alive and therefore most themselves, the life of the body is subordinated to a higher life that is within them."

"Man, then, can only fully be said to be alive when he becomes plainly conscious of the real meaning of his own existence, that is to say when he experiences something of the fulness of intelligence, freedom and spirituality that are actualized within himself."

I wondered for a few hours on it. Could he have been an alcoholic? It;s possible, though not likely. It seems more likely to me that he was a contemplative that knew to his innermost being that true life cannot come from any sort of artificial validation, that it must come from a spiritual source originating from within ones self. To this end he wrote that one must become fully alive. First a mans action must be directed from within himself, caused by the subject of his own thinking. Next he points out that it cannot be enough to live by impulse but one must use the light of intellect, and third, the decision must be made freely, not as a result of obsesion, compulsion or in many cases, addiction.

Cribbed from MSN Movies... Interesting

From Corkers to Porkers: Absolutely Flabulous

So I'm at the press screening for Denzel Washington's new action adventure flick Déjà Vu, which also stars Val Kilmer, and it suddenly occurs to me that numerous men in this movie are carrying extra pounds. Seriously, it's like being at a Weight Watchers meeting. Some of the supporting actors filling out (geddit?) policemen and FBI roles are just plain fat; the star of the film is noticeably fleshier and encases his rounder body in a series of tent-like baggy shirts in a futile attempt to hide it. And as for Val Kilmer? He's either the world's first pregnant man (eating for two hundred, rather than two) or he's past caring.

Now I'm not having a pop at chubby actors (or overweight people, come to that) per se; I don't mind if Denzel Washington puts on even more weight (although he probably should) and I'm not bothered if Val Kilmer's wearing parachutes in ten years time. What annoys me is the age-old Hollywood double standard regarding the appearance of men versus the appearance of women.
While the two biggest (as in stature) stars in Déjà Vu have definitely seen leaner days over the years (Val Kilmer especially going from a corker to a right porker), actress Paula Patton who plays Denzel's love interest, has the typical build of a Tinseltown actress: slim.

She's not carrying an ounce of extra fat anywhere. Would she be cast as a leading man's bit of fluff if she looked as if she'd had been gorging on fried chicken? Of course not. It's one rule for men, another for women.

For example, one of the more high profile actresses to gain weight in Hollywood is two-time Oscar-winner Dame Elizabeth Taylor. In addition to being the butt of so many jokes, her heavier build cost her certain film roles; casting agents and producers were of the opinion that overweight women were not attractive in leading roles. They were fine when it came to playing the 'best friend', of course. It was ever thus. More than twenty years on, what's changed? Not much.

Unlike our Liz, Renée Zellweger's weight gain was for a film role: Bridget Jones. Thanks to a diet of milkshakes, pizzas, burgers and loads of calorific desserts, she filled out (acquiring bigger boobs, which she admitted to missing) and became Helen Fielding's hapless heroine. It was all in the pursuit of verisimilitude - but it paid off (it's hard to imagine anyone else in the part now). And she gamely put her body through it twice too.
However, incredibly, her voluptuousness cost her the cover of Harper's Bazaar. In addition, irrespective of what anyone might say to the contrary, the reality is that there's no way she would've been considered for Hollywood leading roles (especially romances, which are bread and butter to actresses) with her Bridget Jones build. So each time, within a matter of weeks, she rapidly went back to skinny Renée. Apparently, visiting a gym daily for two-hour workouts, watching her food intake (mainly fish, salads and raw vegetables) and checking into a spa helped her get her slight frame back.

Actresses are continually assessed by their body type - even if they've just had babies (I've lost count of the number of articles purporting the post-pregnancy diet of actress A, B or C). We know their bust measurements, their waist in inches, their dress sizes - but what do we know about the Hollywood men who've let their bodies go (apart from their names)? Do we know what size jacket they wear? Or their collar size? No.

And by the way, when was the last time you saw an A-list movie featuring an overweight actress playing the love interest? And don't say Bridget Jones - it doesn't count because Renée put on weight specifically for the role. And yet, I can reel off films with men carrying an extra pound or two who still get to do the romancing. More than that, they still get to work. The likes of Vince Vaughn, John Travolta and Alec Baldwin are as busy as ever - their extra weight is only a dent to their own ego, but not their bank balance. And that's just not bloomin' well fair.

I look forward to the day...

It may well be two years away yet, but I am looking forward to a day when someone else occupies the White House. I still don't account to the man malfeasance, at least not initially, but I do believe that these last few years, since the Iraq ball began to roll, and there was no way to stop it without losing face, this man has answered to no higher power than his ego. He certainly has stopped responding to the American public.

I look forward to a day, where we are led by a man who handles the job of President with a simple incompetence that we laugh off, excusing it because he isn't committing crimes against our nation or anyone else's. I look forward to the day where we have a President that doesn't libel and slander the liberty that we hold dear with every flick of a pen and every speech he makes.

I look forward to the day where citizenship isn't inferred by a person's behavior, but is an objective legal fact once again. I look forward to the day where free speech is the universal law of the land once more, and protesters are not jailed for their signs.

The reason that I look forward to this day, is because our highest office is filled by a man, who is not a public servant, but a man seeking to exercise what he believes to be American might and power. What he doesn't know is that his power isn't unlimited, and so he acts as if it is. Unfortunately, he also doesn't know that the greatness of the American President exists because of the limits of the office. The greatness of the American government is in it's limits of jurisdiction. We have forgotten --or maybe we have never really believed-- that the government that governs best, governs least.

Our Government was created, intended to be, marginalized by its citizens. It was set up to be pushed into a corner and to exist by the good graces of the American people. It was never meant to have one hand picking your pocket and the other stealing your watch. It was never meant to monitor the chemical content of your body, or worry how you altered it. Our government was meant to safeguard our life, liberty and property -- not to tax, restrict and create no-fly lists.

We have fallen very far, and it is because we have chosen poor leaders. It is a gift to the rest of the world that is that we have given ourselves a congress that will act as an antagonist to the president. I hope that it will at least distract him from the rest of the world, draw his attention home so that we don't open up another front in this war on terror(TM).

I look forward to a day where my taxes don't kill people in far away lands, where I am not buying bullets or bombs to be spent on innocent populations. I look forward to a day where the world is made safe again, by a president who is willing to be a public servant, not a tyrant

Sorrows

Sometimes the weight of who I fail to be is just too much to take.

Incidental Findings

This would fall under the heading of incidental findings, were I to place it under any sort of heading.

It seems that the 300 millionth American was born in my zone. That place is a baby factory. I would bet that their chances of the honor were about 1:4.

Also, it seems that I have been reincarnated. Who knew?

In a Past Life...

You Were: A Gentle Sailor. Where You Lived: Spain. How You Died: In Childbirth.

Who'>http://www.blogthings.com/pastlifegenerator/">Who Were You In a Past Life?

Though I can't entirely explain why I died in Child birth, I did hear a story about this guy once who asked his wife if the screaming was really necissary... Maybe it was me.

OK, is there peace on Earth now?

Saddam Hussein is dead. It happened a few minutes ago in a far away city before the dawn had broken. Now that he is dead, has anything changed? The answer is no. Not a single thing has changed. Innocents are still dying, civillians are still displaced and bombs continue to explode.

The one thing that has changed is that one man, guilty, is now dead. And another opportunity is lost. We talked about the death penalty long ago in this blog, and one of the most interesting posts on the subject was by Marcus. Harkening back to that post, I believe that we missed the opportunity to do something truly great that would stand out in the annals of history. We missed the chance to show mercy. We missed the chance to return life when it was to be taken. Now we have Saddam Hussein. He moves closer to his eternal reward, whatever that may be as his body moves closer to room temprature.

Part of the problem is that we equate law and justice, a mistake we should never make. Another piece of this is that we are fighting a war based off of the ego, of one man. Does killing this murderer bring us closer to achieving the goal? I doubt it. In fact I believe it puts us back even further. So why do it? Is it so that someone can feel closure? I certainly don't, and I doubt that anyone else does either.

Will there be equity in "Justice"? Will our leaders have to account for their role in this war? I doubt that they will. We lack both equity and justice. We are trying to protect a freedom that we have already given away and now we are taking lives to fill the void.

The government, rightly or wrongly, has the power to take life. That doesn't mean that it has the right. The more lives that are taken, the more people that are imprisoned and the more laws that are passed, the more I believe that government is just another word for terrorism.

So, Saddam Hussein is dead. Is there peace on Earth now?

testing the moblogger phone

one deux tres