Images from SimplyStreep.com: 'The Deer Hunter' (1978); 'The Manchurian Candidate (2004).

Yes, I'm obsessed with her. I know. I don't need any reminding. My admiration and adoration for this extraordinary woman is only getting stronger. Why? Here's why: 'Monster-in-Law'. That's right, our cruel subjection to pseudo-actresses Jennifer Lopez, Paris Hilton, Kate Hudson and friends.
_____________________________________________

"It has three initials."
After being asked what she thought the biggest danger facing America is today.

"During shock and awe, I wondered which of the megaton bombs Jesus, our president's personal saviour, would have personally dropped on the sleeping families of Baghdad."
Speaking at a fundraiser for Democrat John Kerry

"I just want to say that I don't think the two biggest problems in America are that too many people want to commit their lives to one another 'till death do us part; and steroids in sports. I don't think they are our two biggest problems."
During her speech at the 2004 Golden Globes, after Bush had prioritised gay marriage and steroids-in-sports as two major problems facing the US. Watch the speech: goose.dynip.com/files/audiovideo/goldenglobe200402.wmv

"You don't jettison your citizenship just because you're famous."
On the controversial subject of celebrities publicly expressing political opinion.

"There are some days when I myself think I'm overrated... But not today."
Collecting her Emmy Award for 'Angels in America'. Watch the speech: goose.dynip.com/files/audiovideo/emmy2004.zip

Green Queen turns palace into powerhouse
(August 23, 2005: theaustralian.news.com.au)

LONDON: The Queen is planning to create an underground network to extract heat from the earth's natural warmth and cut energy bills at Buckingham Palace for centuries to come.She has inspired a fashion among the super-rich for drilling boreholes at their properties as the latest "green" status symbol.

Advocates include pop star Elton John, tycoon Richard Branson and billionaire Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen.

The Buckingham Palace system will provide a secure, free and inexhaustible energy supply from beneath the surface of the 1.6ha lake at the heart of the walled gardens. It will pump heating to the state rooms, the formal area of the palace.
Water containing a refrigerant chemical is circulated through a loop of pipework running through the lake bed and into the groundwater feeding it. The slow journey through the coils allows the liquid to absorb the surrounding heat at a constant 12C.

The Queen ordered a small trial in 2002 that drilled 122m into the chalk aquifer beneath the palace grounds to run an eco-friendly airconditioning system for a new art gallery, built at Buckingham Palace to mark her golden jubilee. The results were apparently so impressive that she is ready to take the bold step of using a new underground heating system to replace conventional sources for part of the palace.

The water-refrigerant combination that has absorbed the heat from the ground passes back up the pipe and into the palace where it goes through a compressor that "concentrates" the latent energy, raising the temperature of the liquid to 55C-60C.
It then passes through metal plates in contact with water that is used for the taps, radiators and underfloor heating.

The liquid can also be decompressed so that instead of generating heat, it can provide cool air for airconditioning. The venture is the most radical among a wide range of environmentally conscious schemes adopted by the royal household in recent years.

The Queen's state cars have been switched to liquid petroleum gas, as has the taxi used by Prince Philip to drive anonymously around London.

The Buckingham Palace scheme will cost up to pound stg. 50,000 ($120,000), but is expected to pay for itself in three to seven years. It could then provide free heat energy for a century with almost no maintenance.

(The Sunday Times)

Concerning

(Image from buckfush.com)

I've been thinking about politics a lot lately. And not just because that's what I study at Uni. I've been thinking about how I feel about certain issues. As my profile states, I've never really been sure about where I stand when it comes to Australian politics.

I've come to the conclusion that I must be a leftie. For some time, and without any real knowledge of party policy, I supported Howard's conservatives. Why? I can only say that most of my family favours them, and the limited things I knew about the Labor Party did not appeal to me. I was never a fan of Beazley, but it was only ever for superficial reasons. I admit that after George stole the 2000 election, I didn't mind him. But again, it was all superficial. It was the presidency itself that interested me. And my personal views on the actual issues had not yet formed to any real extent. Of course, those views will continue to alter and evolve with age, but right now, I feel incredibly left-wing - and proud of it. I wish I could describe myself as a 'liberal', but confusion surrounds that term in Australia. I have no idea why the Conservatives here are called the 'Liberal Party'. The word 'liberal', relates to left-wing attitudes. The Conservatives lean to the Right.

I'm currently reading The Last Crusade: The Politics of Misdirection by Barbara Victor (2005). It talks about the rise of Evangelical Christianity in the United States. It's a rise that she (and I) finds concerning. Traditionally, Christians - specifically Evangelical - carry right-wing political views (hence the term, the 'Christian Right'). There are currently 80 million Evangelical Christians in the US. They played a major part in elevating the vague Texan redneck, known as George, to the American presidency (and keeping him there).

Victor raised the following fact: the vast majority of those who describe themselves as 'pro-life' (anti-abortion) are, at the same time, supporters of the death penalty. They also oppose stem-cell research (something quite possibly able to save countless lives).

I'm not going to quote it directly because my knowledge of it is limited, but I am aware that the Bible (The Old Testament?) speaks about those who live by the sword shall die by it; and any man who sheds the blood of another's will have his blood shed too. I also understand that the Bible refers to the sin of a man who lies with another man.

The Bible also says: The LORD said to Moses, "Say to Aaron: 'For the generations to come none of your descendants who has a defect may come near to offer the food of his God. No man who has any defect may come near: no man who is blind or lame, disfigured or deformed; no man with a crippled foot or hand, or who is hunchbacked or dwarfed, or who has any eye defect, or who has any festering or running sores or damaged testicles." (Leviticus 21:16)

Why isn't the Bush Administration condemning the disabled of society? Why aren't they condemning people who wear glasses? George has reading glasses; Cheney wears glasses; Rumsfeld wears glasses; The Pope wears glasses; Howard wears glasses. They're everywhere! So are people with running sores! Help us! (I also understand the Bible looks down on the consumption of shell fish. And here we are in Australia, the home of the prawn!!)

All I'm saying is, please, let's keep an open mind. The Right should stop using the Bible in a selective manner, extracting sections that suit them and their views, many of which are backward. Church and State must remain separate. We should not be using the contents of an ancient Book as the basis for our laws. The Bible has been passed down over centuries, and we have no way of knowing how much or how little it has been altered.

The Buck Fush Clan

I want to acknowledge these Hollywood celebrities, who have either openly spoken out against the Bush Administration, or actively campaigned for the US Democrats. And this is only some of the group. There are many others, including Morgan Freeman, Richard Gere, Ed Harris, Goldie Hawn, Gene Hackman, Edward Norton, Julia Roberts, Oliver Stone, and Uma Therman. Some non-Hollywood ones include the Dixie Chicks, Eminem, Pearl Jam, Bruce Springsteen, U2, Carlos Santana and Moby. There are many more... Just think Hollywood, and exclude Kelsey Grammar and the Reagans.

Fill the gap and breed

It's interesting to see a new advertising campaign has been launched for Brisbane. I heard on the news that the primary objective of the campaign is to shake off Brisbane's 'big country town' reputation. The television ad, after it has thrown at us images of perfection and excitement and action, states "Yes, it's a sleepy little town". Will it work? Well, this city needs more than a few ads to get rid of that image. It actually needs to evolve. (Oh, the joys of cynicism.)

I think it's a good thing to take pride in your home town. But I really can't stand the people (be they writers in magazines or lifestyle TV presenters) who constantly insist that Brisbane is a "world-class city", featuring the "funky" and "pumping" Fortitude Valley; that "Brisbane is the new black"; that Brisbane is jam-packed with cafés and art galleries; that Brisbane is the "hub of culture" (a grand total of two mainstream cinemas in the CBD, for example); even that Brisbane is the "greatest" city in the world.

Brisbane has a way to go. It's going to take more than a new shopping centre on the corner of Edward and Adelaide (as nice as that may be) to signal Brisbane's "coming of age". Don't get me wrong, Brisbane has some really great areas. But when I see Japanese tourists in town taking photos of the Commonwealth Bank building, I think 'we really have to give them, and ourselves, more'.

Why is it that I can go into the city and see the same stranger three times in the space of an hour? Why can I go into the city on Sunday night and hear my footsteps echoing? Why is a torn singlet, togs, and bare feet perfectly acceptable in Elizabeth Street? Why am I on buses that rattle like buggery? Buses that were built for Expo '88. Buses that were designed when the term 'air-conditioning' sounded like something you would do to improve the health of a plant.

Brisbane is a sleepy little town. I will tear my hair out completely the next time I read an article by someone who likens this city to Paris. Expansion needs to be pursued. Let's stop restricting ourselves to the same old CBD-nucleus that has existed forever. The gap between the city and the Valley should be filled.

_______________________________________________

On another note, "The Weekend" by Michael Gray is good. Really good. Download it if you can.