Very sad news today for New Zealand. One of our greatest New Zealanders has today died - Sir Edmund Hillary:
http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/newsdetail1.asp?storyID=130460
I heard it as breaking news on Newstalk ZB at about 11:30 this morning. It was a statement from the Prime Minister read out. Among the many great things he did in his life he was the first person to climb the highest mountain in the world, Mount Everest - someone from little ole New Zealand! And of course he was the only living person (besides the Queen) to be featured on our currency. He was 88 years old so has had a very good innings. Perhaps there will be a state funeral if the family allows it.
It's been the main news item on Sky News Australia for the past hour or so (wouldn't be surprised if the Aussies claim him for their own!)
There's no mucking around on Wikipedia. It already mentions his death:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Edmund_Hillary
Friday, January 11, 2008
Thursday, January 10, 2008
More Star Trek movie spoilers!
As you probably know by now a new Star Trek movie is being released at the end of this year. Here's some more spoliers about the movie that I came across (some of it could be true and some could be rumours). Some things sound good, but some not so good - like Kirk being a "bad boy" at the academy.
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/35208
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/35208
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
Hillary wins in New Hampshire today!
The New Hampshire primary is all over and I’m very happy that Hillary Clinton was able to come back and win it for the Democrats today! It’s going to be very close between Clinton and Obama over the next few weeks until one of them shows a clear lead. I like both these candidates but I feel Hillary would be better as president as she has had much more experience in politics than Obama (and she has Bubba to back her up!)
Now over to the Republican side today. Well, old fuddy-duddy John McCain won that one. Hell – he’s like 90 or something! Is the Republican Party so desperate that they would nominate some old over-the-hill man like McCain? Still, I’m glad Mitt came second, and even though he didn’t win today he now leads over all as he has been the most consistent so far – one win (in Wyoming), and two 2nds (in Iowa and New Hampshire). I really hope Mitt wins the Republican nomination – all their other candidates are complete nut cases!
So apart from the top three in each party (Clinton, Obama, and Edwards for the Democrats, and Romney, Huckabee, and McCain for the Republicans) the rest of the candidates need to think seriously about whether it’s worth carrying on (and yes, I include Giuliani in that). Is there any point for these lower ranked candidates to spend any more money after not doing very well in the first week of caucuses and primaries? Sure, there is a long way to go in the campaign, but who says these other candidates will do any better elsewhere?
So now it’s on to Michigan on January 16th (NZ Time) and Nevada on January 20th.
For more information on the state of play so far see:
http://edition.cnn.com/POLITICS/
Now over to the Republican side today. Well, old fuddy-duddy John McCain won that one. Hell – he’s like 90 or something! Is the Republican Party so desperate that they would nominate some old over-the-hill man like McCain? Still, I’m glad Mitt came second, and even though he didn’t win today he now leads over all as he has been the most consistent so far – one win (in Wyoming), and two 2nds (in Iowa and New Hampshire). I really hope Mitt wins the Republican nomination – all their other candidates are complete nut cases!
So apart from the top three in each party (Clinton, Obama, and Edwards for the Democrats, and Romney, Huckabee, and McCain for the Republicans) the rest of the candidates need to think seriously about whether it’s worth carrying on (and yes, I include Giuliani in that). Is there any point for these lower ranked candidates to spend any more money after not doing very well in the first week of caucuses and primaries? Sure, there is a long way to go in the campaign, but who says these other candidates will do any better elsewhere?
So now it’s on to Michigan on January 16th (NZ Time) and Nevada on January 20th.
For more information on the state of play so far see:
http://edition.cnn.com/POLITICS/
Friday, January 04, 2008
Late night talk shows back!
One of my favourite TV programmes, "The Late Show with David Letterman", is back on after two months! His company was able to make a deal with the writers so he could go back on air. (Don't know about his new beard though!)
http://www.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/tv/bal-latenight0103,0,6878018.story?coll=bal-features-columnists
Meanwhile his rival, Jay Leno (not to be outdone by Letterman), also came back on, but without his writers, so essentially he and his guests are crossing the picket line. Jay's guest on his first show was Republican candidate Mike Huckabee - I am so glad this show is not screened in New Zealand! (I always knew that Leno was a Republican).
Speaking of American politics today is the day of the start of voting rounds for the presidential race with the Iowa Caucasus. I was watching Fox News but got sick of the Republican bias (even though they claim there is none), so now I've switched over to CNN. So go Hillary for the Democrats, and go Mitt for the Republicans.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/tv/bal-latenight0103,0,6878018.story?coll=bal-features-columnists
Meanwhile his rival, Jay Leno (not to be outdone by Letterman), also came back on, but without his writers, so essentially he and his guests are crossing the picket line. Jay's guest on his first show was Republican candidate Mike Huckabee - I am so glad this show is not screened in New Zealand! (I always knew that Leno was a Republican).
Speaking of American politics today is the day of the start of voting rounds for the presidential race with the Iowa Caucasus. I was watching Fox News but got sick of the Republican bias (even though they claim there is none), so now I've switched over to CNN. So go Hillary for the Democrats, and go Mitt for the Republicans.
Thursday, January 03, 2008
Response to TV Guide letters
I always read the readers letters in The TV Guide (New Zealand) every week and sometimes I agree with their comments, but most times I don't. There's a couple of letters in the TV Guide which came out today (Jan 12-18) which I'd like to reply to.
The first letter is "Doctor is wrong prescription". This person complained about the Doctor Who marathon on Prime on Christmas Day. I thought it was a great idea. TV isn't usually watched on Christmas Day, but I enjoyed relaxing watching some of these episodes after having a big Christmas dinner. I can't imagine anyone glued to the telly all Christmas Day as this reader implied. One comment they made I disagree with, "who could stand to watch hour after hour of repeats which are still fresh in the memory?" They must have a very good memory - these particular episodes were screened almost three years ago! Then they go on to say "This also applies to Star Trek on Prime on Sundays". What???!!! Don't rubbish the greatest sci-fi of all time! I am very glad that Prime screens Star Trek episodes on Sundays. Until this started up last year no Star Trek was been screened in NZ at all! (Star Trek is treated very well in other countries). When most of these Star Trek episodes were last screened in NZ we didn't have digital TV, so it's good to watch them in digital quality at last.
The other letter is "Favourite soap has gone too far". They were complaining about the trailers of Coronation Street showing too much of the programme. Get over it! I don't see what the big fascination is with Coronation Street anyway? The only countries where it is popular are Britain, Canada (where it is eight-and-a-half months behind), and New Zealand (where it is 13 months behind!) It can't be very popular in Australia as it's only on Pay TV over there (and 18 months behind). I guess all the NZers moving to Australia aren't Coronation Street fans! I think also it's popularity is to do with the country's "TV One" mentality - how if a programme is on TV One then it must be good. I heard a few years back that Prime were looking at purchasing Coronation Street off TVNZ. Even though Prime is available to most of the country I reckon that viewer numbers would have dropped because the show would no longer be on TV One - crazy!!
Meanwhile, the soap that I watch, "Home and Away", is popular in Australia, United Kingdom, New Zealand, Ireland, Estonia, France, Norway, Sweden, Israel, and many Asian countries! (And has won 27 Logie Awards!)
The first letter is "Doctor is wrong prescription". This person complained about the Doctor Who marathon on Prime on Christmas Day. I thought it was a great idea. TV isn't usually watched on Christmas Day, but I enjoyed relaxing watching some of these episodes after having a big Christmas dinner. I can't imagine anyone glued to the telly all Christmas Day as this reader implied. One comment they made I disagree with, "who could stand to watch hour after hour of repeats which are still fresh in the memory?" They must have a very good memory - these particular episodes were screened almost three years ago! Then they go on to say "This also applies to Star Trek on Prime on Sundays". What???!!! Don't rubbish the greatest sci-fi of all time! I am very glad that Prime screens Star Trek episodes on Sundays. Until this started up last year no Star Trek was been screened in NZ at all! (Star Trek is treated very well in other countries). When most of these Star Trek episodes were last screened in NZ we didn't have digital TV, so it's good to watch them in digital quality at last.
The other letter is "Favourite soap has gone too far". They were complaining about the trailers of Coronation Street showing too much of the programme. Get over it! I don't see what the big fascination is with Coronation Street anyway? The only countries where it is popular are Britain, Canada (where it is eight-and-a-half months behind), and New Zealand (where it is 13 months behind!) It can't be very popular in Australia as it's only on Pay TV over there (and 18 months behind). I guess all the NZers moving to Australia aren't Coronation Street fans! I think also it's popularity is to do with the country's "TV One" mentality - how if a programme is on TV One then it must be good. I heard a few years back that Prime were looking at purchasing Coronation Street off TVNZ. Even though Prime is available to most of the country I reckon that viewer numbers would have dropped because the show would no longer be on TV One - crazy!!
Meanwhile, the soap that I watch, "Home and Away", is popular in Australia, United Kingdom, New Zealand, Ireland, Estonia, France, Norway, Sweden, Israel, and many Asian countries! (And has won 27 Logie Awards!)
Tuesday, January 01, 2008
New Years TV coverage
Happy New Year 2008 to everyone! Now a quick round up of New Year's coverage on some of the TV channels.
Last night I was watching to see which New Zealand TV channels would have a countdown to the new year (remember the new years parties they used to have on TV on New Year's Eve?) I had been watching the music on C4 and at midnight they had a countdown to midnight. A quick switch over TV3 and they interrupted their movie to show the fireworks live from the Auckland Sky Tower. Good on these two CanWest channels on acknowledging New Years. Now I was assuming that state broadcaster TVNZ would try to outdo this for New Zealand viewers. But no (not surprisingly). Their programmes just continued right through midnight without any mention that it was now 2008 - very pathetic!
Now a brief run down of the international news channels. Sky News Australia has by far been the best. They have shown very good coverage of New Year's fireworks from around the world. They started off with showing the fireworks from the Sky Tower in Auckland at midnight (NZ Time) then a couple of hours later the amazing fireworks at Sydney Harbour. I also saw Moscow at 10am this morning, London at 1pm, Rio at 3pm, and New York at 6pm. CNN, Fox News, and BBC World have shown little bits of fireworks from around the world, but of course CNN and Fox News had extensive coverage of new years celebrations in New York at 6pm (NZ Time). And I've just seen fireworks on CNN for the central states (at 7pm NZ Time).
Last night I was watching to see which New Zealand TV channels would have a countdown to the new year (remember the new years parties they used to have on TV on New Year's Eve?) I had been watching the music on C4 and at midnight they had a countdown to midnight. A quick switch over TV3 and they interrupted their movie to show the fireworks live from the Auckland Sky Tower. Good on these two CanWest channels on acknowledging New Years. Now I was assuming that state broadcaster TVNZ would try to outdo this for New Zealand viewers. But no (not surprisingly). Their programmes just continued right through midnight without any mention that it was now 2008 - very pathetic!
Now a brief run down of the international news channels. Sky News Australia has by far been the best. They have shown very good coverage of New Year's fireworks from around the world. They started off with showing the fireworks from the Sky Tower in Auckland at midnight (NZ Time) then a couple of hours later the amazing fireworks at Sydney Harbour. I also saw Moscow at 10am this morning, London at 1pm, Rio at 3pm, and New York at 6pm. CNN, Fox News, and BBC World have shown little bits of fireworks from around the world, but of course CNN and Fox News had extensive coverage of new years celebrations in New York at 6pm (NZ Time). And I've just seen fireworks on CNN for the central states (at 7pm NZ Time).
Friday, December 07, 2007
Mitt gives his "Mormon" speech
Republican presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, gave his much-anticipated “Faith in America” speech yesterday explaining how his religion would or wouldn’t affect his candidacy. Even though I am a Democrat supporter I am following Mitt’s campaign closely because I am a member of the same church as him – The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
I have not seen the speech yet but I’ve read a bit about it, and personally I think he did a good job. He didn’t go into points of doctrine in our church and compare our beliefs with other religions, nor should he need to do this. He said, “There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church’s distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution. No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith. For if he becomes President he will need the prayers of the people of all faiths.”
He also said, "I am an American running for president. I do not define my candidacy by my religion. A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith." This is true. You can vote for someone because they are the same religion as you if you like, but it shouldn’t be the only determining factor on whether or not to vote for a candidate.
He’s also right when he said, “In recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America—the religion of secularism. They are wrong.” There’s nothing wrong with a government being based in Christian principles, but the state and religion (especially a specific religion) should be kept separate.
Mitt says he would not distance himself from his faith, and nor should he. Being a Latter-day Saint guides him in his life and gives his life purpose, just like it does with mine. He said, “Some believe such a confession of my faith will sink my candidacy. If they are right, so be it. But I think they underestimate the American people. Americans do not respect believers of convenience. Americans tire of those who would jettison their beliefs, even to gain the world.”
There are a lot of Christians who think that Mormons are not Christian. (I don’t know how they can say that when the name of our church is “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”!) So Mitt quickly put that to rest when he said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Saviour of mankind. My church’s beliefs about Christ may not all be the same as those of other faiths. Each religion has its own unique doctrines and history. These are not bases for criticism but rather a test of our tolerance. Religious tolerance would be a shallow principle indeed if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree.”
Even though I don’t want to support a Republican I want to see Mitt do well in this campaign, and keep that radical Mike Huckabee out!
The church issued a statement yesterday reemphasising its political neutrality. It says, “The Church’s mission is to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ, not to elect politicians. The Church’s neutrality in matters of party politics applies in all of the many nations in which it is established.” Then why do most people in Utah vote Republican? I’ll never be able to understand that.
Here are some news articles on Mitt’s speech: http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/06/romney.speech/index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/07/us/politics/06cnd-romney.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp&adxnnlx=1196971712-SwrOCw0KthGDp7VztDuq1w
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,5143,695233771,00.html
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,5143,695233791,00.html
http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2ced329706ca6110VgnVCM100000176f620aRCRD&vgnextchannel=9ae411154963d010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD
I have not seen the speech yet but I’ve read a bit about it, and personally I think he did a good job. He didn’t go into points of doctrine in our church and compare our beliefs with other religions, nor should he need to do this. He said, “There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church’s distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution. No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith. For if he becomes President he will need the prayers of the people of all faiths.”
He also said, "I am an American running for president. I do not define my candidacy by my religion. A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith." This is true. You can vote for someone because they are the same religion as you if you like, but it shouldn’t be the only determining factor on whether or not to vote for a candidate.
He’s also right when he said, “In recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America—the religion of secularism. They are wrong.” There’s nothing wrong with a government being based in Christian principles, but the state and religion (especially a specific religion) should be kept separate.
Mitt says he would not distance himself from his faith, and nor should he. Being a Latter-day Saint guides him in his life and gives his life purpose, just like it does with mine. He said, “Some believe such a confession of my faith will sink my candidacy. If they are right, so be it. But I think they underestimate the American people. Americans do not respect believers of convenience. Americans tire of those who would jettison their beliefs, even to gain the world.”
There are a lot of Christians who think that Mormons are not Christian. (I don’t know how they can say that when the name of our church is “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”!) So Mitt quickly put that to rest when he said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Saviour of mankind. My church’s beliefs about Christ may not all be the same as those of other faiths. Each religion has its own unique doctrines and history. These are not bases for criticism but rather a test of our tolerance. Religious tolerance would be a shallow principle indeed if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree.”
Even though I don’t want to support a Republican I want to see Mitt do well in this campaign, and keep that radical Mike Huckabee out!
The church issued a statement yesterday reemphasising its political neutrality. It says, “The Church’s mission is to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ, not to elect politicians. The Church’s neutrality in matters of party politics applies in all of the many nations in which it is established.” Then why do most people in Utah vote Republican? I’ll never be able to understand that.
Here are some news articles on Mitt’s speech: http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/06/romney.speech/index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/07/us/politics/06cnd-romney.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp&adxnnlx=1196971712-SwrOCw0KthGDp7VztDuq1w
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,5143,695233771,00.html
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,5143,695233791,00.html
http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2ced329706ca6110VgnVCM100000176f620aRCRD&vgnextchannel=9ae411154963d010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD
Wednesday, December 05, 2007
Mohammed the teddy
You may have heard in the news recently about a British teacher in Sudan who called a teddy bear “Mohammed”:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,,-7126099,00.html
She is 54 years old and I’m sure she is a very nice person. However, she allowed her seven-year-old pupils to name a teddy bear Mohammed. Because of this she spent more than a week in prison and has now been deported back to Britain. She also faced calls for her execution!
Now come on, this is totally ridiculous! I know we must respect other people’s beliefs, but wanting to execute someone for allowing children to name a teddy bear Mohammed is going far too far! From what I understand a lot of children in the Muslim world are named Mohammed, so what’s wrong with calling a teddy bear this name? I am Christian, and if someone named a teddy bear after a prophet, such as Moses, Abraham, Peter, John, Nephi, Moroni, or even Joseph Smith, I wouldn’t mind at all!
We get quite concerned about these Islamist extremists and what they might do next, but I think we should be more concerned about the “Christian right” in the United States!
The campaign is now on for the next president of the United States. Mike Huckabee, a former Southern Baptist minister, is gaining popularity, especially amongst evangelical Christian voters. As mentioned before I am Christian but I think it would be a disaster if someone like Mike Huckabee became president. I think it would bring “church and state” together which clearly should be kept separate. If we think it’s bad now with Bush as president, imagine what it would be like with someone like Huckabee as president. It would start to take away the freedoms of those not of the Christian right, and America is a country that is built on freedom.
So I really hope that Mitt Romney’s “Mormon speech” goes well for him. I would much rather have a Latter-day Saint Christian as president than an evangelical Christian! By the way, let’s hope a Democrat becomes president anyway. They would be a president for ALL Americans and make sure the United States has a good relationship again with the rest of the world.
See: http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695233014,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,,-7126099,00.html
She is 54 years old and I’m sure she is a very nice person. However, she allowed her seven-year-old pupils to name a teddy bear Mohammed. Because of this she spent more than a week in prison and has now been deported back to Britain. She also faced calls for her execution!
Now come on, this is totally ridiculous! I know we must respect other people’s beliefs, but wanting to execute someone for allowing children to name a teddy bear Mohammed is going far too far! From what I understand a lot of children in the Muslim world are named Mohammed, so what’s wrong with calling a teddy bear this name? I am Christian, and if someone named a teddy bear after a prophet, such as Moses, Abraham, Peter, John, Nephi, Moroni, or even Joseph Smith, I wouldn’t mind at all!
We get quite concerned about these Islamist extremists and what they might do next, but I think we should be more concerned about the “Christian right” in the United States!
The campaign is now on for the next president of the United States. Mike Huckabee, a former Southern Baptist minister, is gaining popularity, especially amongst evangelical Christian voters. As mentioned before I am Christian but I think it would be a disaster if someone like Mike Huckabee became president. I think it would bring “church and state” together which clearly should be kept separate. If we think it’s bad now with Bush as president, imagine what it would be like with someone like Huckabee as president. It would start to take away the freedoms of those not of the Christian right, and America is a country that is built on freedom.
So I really hope that Mitt Romney’s “Mormon speech” goes well for him. I would much rather have a Latter-day Saint Christian as president than an evangelical Christian! By the way, let’s hope a Democrat becomes president anyway. They would be a president for ALL Americans and make sure the United States has a good relationship again with the rest of the world.
See: http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695233014,00.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
