I recently became distracted by a headline on the Reuters website about Skype and a possible Chinese ban.  Skype has had my attention in the past few weeks because I’ve been sitting round waiting for the Android app to allow free video chatting.  When this headline hit my email I was instantly interested.

China is an interesting animal these days.  Sometimes we hear about strides they may be making in free enterprise then other times we hear stories like this that make us rethink the direction they’re going.  I still remember the headlines before the Beijing Olympics talking about free speech and Internet.  As much as people like to think that China is becoming more free, I still think there is a long way to go.

Let’s just look at their latest telephony incident in this article because that is what caught my attention this time.

One of the reasons the article gave for the possible ban on Skype is the protection of the big three telephone services offered in China.  Skype, and VoIP services like it, offer free calling between users, thus saving the users long distance charges.  Many people can call internationally as long as both users are using Skype.  China may be seeing this as taking business away from the main telephone services.

How has competition from VoIP services affected American telephone companies?

In my opinion, I think it has benefited everyone involved.

Customers are finding prices a lot more reasonable and long distance boundaries are pretty much falling, at least within the states.  Now even the telephone companies themselves, along with cable companies, now offer much better pricing plans.  Many plans are now unlimited.  Customers no longer have to watch the clock to make sure they aren’t thrown in the poor house because of their phone bill.

Telephone companies have learned to deal with the competition by innovating and improving their own technology and operations.  Companies either went out of business or competed.  It was this competition that lead to the improvements.  Capitalism encourages competition, improvements and innovations.  This is the way America runs (or ought to be running).

How will stifling the competition for the big three affect services in China?

Personally, I see the lack of competition stifling innovation and improvement.

If you have a company who has no competition, they won’t have any reason to innovate.  Their customers won’t have any other choice but to use their services so why would they invest money in coming up with new technology?  The answer: they wouldn’t.

If there is not any other companies undercutting a business, why would they go out of their way to find ways to cut costs or improve the offerings?  Same answer: they wouldn’t.

Also, the basic idea of freedom is being obliterated.

Once again, we have a country with a poor record for freedom proving to the world that they are not ready to change.  Our president can go over there to check things out as much as he wants, but if they keep this kind of Communist garbage up, there isn’t much sign of change.  Basically, China’s free because they have the freedom to sell their wares in our WalMarts, but when it comes to competing in their markets, we get the proverbial raspberry.

I know they aren’t an American company, but you get the idea.

So what do you think about this rumor hitting the mill?  Is competition from a company such as Skype a healthy thing or something to be threatened by?  You know my opinion!

Wow, Juan Williams being fired has begun quite the debate in journalism.  For those of you who don’t know, Mr. Williams said something in a debate with Bill O’Reilly that apparently NPR didn’t like much because they fired him about on the spot.  He was talking honestly about his feelings when he sees people in Muslim dress on an airplane.

Granted, maybe there are some feelings that when shared with the public will cause a “discussion.”  Maybe, just maybe, what he said was kind of stupid.  For instance, if a Muslim person were to want to carry out a terrorist attack on a plane in America, you’d think they’d drop the garb.  However, the fact is, he was apparently having a discussion about how these silly personal feelings ought not cause us to infringe on another person’s rights. His side of the story.

That’s the background of what brought up the debate about funding and its affect on journalism, specifically at NPR.  Now it is no secret that the programming on NPR is biased to the left.  Strongly.  Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t even think it is debated.  Anyone who listens to some of the reporting would be able to tell you.  The questions start flying in when we talk about some of its funding coming from the government.

How much of the funding? 25%?  10%?  Less than 1%?  Apparently it depends on who you ask and how you look at it.  In my mind it matters very little.  First, why have it in the first place if it’s as low as NPR wants us to think?  Does 1-2% really matter?  Is it that hard to make up from some other source?  They say (in the video in this article) that the portion could be made up but that it is very important to them.  What does that mean?

When I began to hear some of the debate around the matter, it reminded me about the article I wrote not that long ago about TechCrunch and their acquisition by AOL.  The same (or similar) question arises: Can impartial reporting really take place with “purse strings”?  Oh, and the other question: Is there really such thing as impartial reporting?

I learned a very important principle from a professor in Bible college: What you believe about anything will affect what you believe about everything.  How true is that statement?  If you think about it for a second, I think you may agree.  In fact, the way I see it what you believe about anything affects every other aspect of your life.

For instance, I believe that God created the world in 6 days.  Everything else I do, say or think is affected somehow by that one belief.  OK, I know that’s a biggie, but you get the idea.  Have you ever seen reporters reporting on political debates and events?  Their political leanings are so obvious through their conversation that you can just about tell who they are planning on voting for.

NPR is the same way.  We all know their political leanings.  Apposing viewpoints are almost laughed at.  Perhaps it’s not on purpose, but when they fire Juan Williams for inserting too much opinion it is almost funny.  Funny isn’t the right word.  Disturbing.  There’s the word.

OK, think about these two points and then answer the question of the hour.  One, it’s obvious that NPR leans in a political direction.  Juan Williams was fired because of a personal opinion.  Here’s the question… and please weigh in (feel free to leave comments at the bottom):

Image via Wikipedia

The Missouri Information Analysis Center has put out a report called “The Modern Militia Movement” outlining some possible characteristics of a modern para-military member or a domestic terrorist.

Here’s the FYI:

You might be a militia member/domestic terrorist if… you’re anti-abortion
You might be a militia member/domestic terrorist if… you vote for third party candidates
You might be a militia member/domestic terrorist if… you voted for “a certain Republican member of Congress” (sorry Dr. Paul)
You might be a militia member/domestic terrorist if… you’re a Rush Limbaugh fan (via newsbusters.org) (according to Joy Behar) – ok, this one may not be in the report!

Oh, and heaven forbid you would have a Ron Paul or NRA bumpersticker or a “Don’t Tread On Me” flag!  (read a Glenn Beck transcript on the topic)

Well, I don’t assume these lines will show up on the script of a stand up comic any day soon but the list is still interesting!

Note, I’m sure this list is not exclusive so you may want to check the actual document for more information.

<via Foxnews.com>

Last night Jay Leno had a very special guest on his show:  Barack Obama!  Whether you like the man or not, or whether you voted for him or not, the interview apparently was an interesting one!  I won’t go into the details because you can hit up the news or YouTube for that.  I just want your oppinion!

He said some interesting things during the interview, one of which was a joke concerning the Special Olympics where he compares it with his bowling game.  Now, as careless as the remark could have been, he arguably did not mean any disrespect towards people with disabilities OR the Special Olympics, if you give him the benefit of the doubt.  However, as the President of the United States, he MUST know the power of his words.  AND he must know the prestige, power, and importance of the office which he holds.

I have several questions concerning this interview:

1. Do you think the President has any business on a late night talk show?
2. Do you think the effects of the interview will be positive or negative?
3. Do you think there could have been a better way to garnish support for any of his policies or plans?
4. Do you think the President should be held to a higher standard for the things he says than the average American?

Let me know in the comments!

Related articles by Zemanta

• President Obama’s Tailor Doesn’t Like His Casual Wear (shoppingblog.com)
• Thorns and All, Obama’s Dialogue with Europe Has Begun: Le Figaro, France (themoderatevoice.com)
• Obama to sit down with Jay Leno on ‘The Tonight Show’ (middletownmike.blogspot.com)
• Obama And AIG: No More Mr. Nice Guy? (themoderatevoice.com)
• Obama, The Gridiron And Leno: Where’s The Outrage? (themoderatevoice.com)
• President Obama in for the toughest interview of his life … Jay Leno? (tvsquad.com)

Well, I was relaxing the other night and I was watching some interesting YouTube videos and I came across some interesting investigative reporting by John Stossel.  Can you imaging taking on gun control AND global warming?  Well, check these segments out:

• Here, John makes some interesting points about how crime rates actually rise when the guns are taken away from the citizens!

• Can you believe he is actually taking on the animal of global warming?  Go John!

I don’t always blog about controversal issues such as these but I found these videos interesting and worth the conversation.  OK, so what do you think?  Gun control, great idea? or taking rights away?  Global warming, inconvenient truth or convenient lie?  You start the conversation in the comments!

There are two types of people who annoy me: salespeople and politicians. Well, I’m sure if I were to think about it harder, I’d find more but two will do for now.

I reminded myself of the annoying nature of salesmen a few years back when I was looking for a car. I was looking for something reliable so I was willing to take on a car loan to do it. First, I followed sound financial advice and secured my own funding before even looking. I found a good interest rate with my own local credit union. Numerous salesmen chose to totally ignore the fact that I already had a loan and wanted to pressure me into letting them “run some numbers” to find a good loan for me. How nice of them.

The other job of a salesman other than annoying me with loans is to somehow show me how great of a deal they could give me on my trade in. Knowing the trade in value of my old car, imagine my surprise and confusion when I was offered several thousand dollars more than trade in value! Salesmen enjoy playing around with the numbers so they sound good, or is it just to annoy us? I haven’t figured it out yet.

If any of you are salespeople, PLEASE do not be offended!  I know you are needed and that you need to be good at what you do, I just prefer a no-nonsense, cut-to-the-chase, treat me with respect and show me the real price type of salesperson.

Well, I just reminded myself of the annoying nature of politicians this evening while watching the second of three 2008 American presidential debates. I don’t feel like it was the best use of my time.  I know, I know, it’s good to be informed.   I’d have to complain that I really didn’t learn anything new, just more of the same political babble.  It actually reminded me more of an argument between students on an elementary school bus.  The “He said” and “No I didn’t, he said” and the “remember what he did?” and “I never did that!  Your mom wears high heels!” kind of gave me a headache.  Even the arguing with the moderator for more time reminded me of the whining nature of babies when a toy’s been taken away from them!

I wonder if they realized that neither of their parties are much better than the other when it comes to such things as government spending, healthcare, world domination, etc.  OK, maybe not, but when they’re being annoying, it certainly seems that way!  Half of the time I think they actually agreed with each other but had to twist words just to make the other sound stupid or totally off their rocker.  Totally annoying.

Now, don’t get me wrong, there are some real differences between the two.  I’m just annoyed by politicians in general. If you are running for an office, or hold an office, I thank you for your public service!  Don’t get me wrong, if things are to ever change, we need some good people in office.  Just don’t be annoying.

I just think the Lord was giving me yet another reason to stay away from the television.  Anyways, there’s bound to be a transcript somewhere online anyhow!