iJohn Report

After reading this, it just made me crazy yet again.  When I see how every day, cities, states and the federal government want to tell us how to live our lives.

They ban legal activity because they don’t believe that people have a choice.  They ban smoking because people can’t make a choice to not go to a private business if they don’t like smoking.  If smoking is a game changer for the private business, they hold the right to not allow smoking.

I have no problem having the appropriate level of government can control what happens within their buildings.  That is their right.  I don’t think they have a right to prevent private business from conducting legal activities on their own property.

Now, San Francisco are thinking of banning Happy Meals because “the toys in McDonald’s Happy Meals unfairly lure children to eat unhealthy food.”  Wait, last time I looked, I didn’t see kids going into McDonald’s and paying for Happy Meals.  If you have, I still don’t think the issue is with McDonalds,  there is a parenting issue somewhere there.  Yes, kids are taken in by their PARENTS.  Their parents have to make a choice to go in and purchase said Happy Meal with a toy to give to their children.  It shows either the total apathy of parents, and the overbearing government wanting to control parental action.  Newsflash: They are MY children.  Last time I looked, a burger is legal.  If I want to give my kid a burger and fries, that’s my right.  burger and fries are legal.  Now, as a parent you want to spend $4 on a Happy Meal (I’ve no idea how much they cost as I’ve not bought in an ages) just to get the cheap plastic toy for your kid, maybe you need to reevaluate how you spend your money.

By the way… this is a city that wants to ban Happy Meals (which are legal) but allow smoking of pot (which is a federal crime).  This seems to be a city that approves of activities that are illegal but want to ban it if it’s legal.

That does bring me nicely to the subject of legalizing marijuana.  I don’t smoke it, I’ve no want to smoke it.  I don’t have any attraction to it.  I tried it when I was younger (and I did inhale), didn’t see the big deal.  I’m supposed to be against it, right?  There was a time I probably was more against than for legalizing it.  Now, there is no such fence sitting.  I believe it should be legalized and regulated, just like cigarettes and booze.  Just like anything else, as long as you’re not hurting anyone else, go at it.  You are responsible for your own self.  If there is a private establishment who wants to allow it, then you can go and smoke with like-minded people.  Saying that, you won’t see me out on the street with a banner demanding it be legalized, or wearing a tshirt.  I don’t smoke, I don’t intend to ever smoke in the future.  I believe it’s a freedom that people should have.

There has been a lot of controversy over the last while about first lady’s mega-expensive vacation in Spain.  I think there has, rightly so, been valid blowback towards her on this.

I totally agree that everyone needs a vacation.  It seems that Michelle has been on a constant vacation for the last few months.  In a time where people are losing their jobs (or can’t get a job), the economy is in the toilet, people fighting to make ends meet, all the while your husband is talking about the sacrifices all Americans must make to get us through, all the while you’re going and parading around Spain for a week is highly insensitive and really drives the “one rule for them, another for us” thought.  Also, it’s costing the tax payer over $300,000 to do so.

I understand she needs secret service security, but I think at a time when the country is the way it is, you could have had a simpler, less extravagant getaway.  Take a note from your husband.  While I harbor no love for our President’s actions in office (He seems like a nice guy, but his actions and what he wants I totally disagree with), he chose to spend his birthday back in Chicago.  Simpler, less noticeable and more thoughtful at the time.  Whether that was intended, I don’t care.  Oh, this was all when it was his  birthday.

I heard all the retorts of “Laura Bush had vacations without Dubya”.  First, it’s time to get past the whole Bush syndrome, he hasn’t been President for a while.  It’s done already.  Secondly, yes she did.  She went to see her daughters in college and home to see her family.  She didn’t gallivant around Europe, costing taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars.

As I said, I’ve no problem with having a vacation, but when you know it’s costing the US taxpayer a lot of money, it’s time for restraint.  Maybe you know and just don’t care.

UPDATE 8/19: If all the vacations weren’t enough, the Obama family are about to notch up their sixth vacation of the year.

The people who will support and try to defend this by pointing to what President Bush done (He spent a total of 879 days at his ranch in Texas in his 8 years as President).  Let’s look a little at that though.  Every President has their “getaway”, where they can go outside of the White House.  Most Presidents go to Camp David or have their own place where they went to get away from Washington.  President Reagan had Rancho del Cielo  Note. a 25 day vacation cost the taxpayer about $600,000 back in 1987, adjusted for inflation is about $1.1 million today.  In contrast, Michelle’s 7 day jaunt in Spain cost about $350,000.  That would be just a tad over $1.2 million if it turned out to be a 25 day vacation.  Not much difference?  Well there is.  One was the PRESIDENT and family, the other is the first lady.  I don’t want to even think of what the cost would be if it was the President on vacation.

I’ll digress and go back to the differences.  There are places where Presidents go to get away.  As I stated, President Reagan had his ranch in California, President George H W Bush had Walker’s Point (which is also known as “The Bush Compound”), George W had his ranch in Texas.  These are places where the President spend more time relaxing.  Where they could relax and still work.  I’m sure President Obama’s “home away from home” will be either Chicago or even his birth home of Hawaii.  I’ve no problem with these vacations.

The problem is at a time where a lot of people don’t have time to get one vacation, and they are off on another expensive family vacation.

Is WikiLeaks freedom of expression or just plain theft?

WikiLeaks, we have found out, but not wholly a big surprise in the tech community, that the same crew who help the Pirate Bay are also hosting for them.  I read this article at Fox News, and it raised a question in my mind.  Is this freedom of expression?  Where is the line?  Is there a line?

Sweden has some of the most protective laws pertaining to “freedom of expression” and protecting whistleblowers.  Iceland also have passed sweeping laws protecting the same.

I guess everyone has their interpretation of what a “whistleblower” is.  For me, it’s someone who has personal first hand knowledge of wrongdoing and feels the need to right that wrong, not for publicity or personal gain.  They go to a group or body that legally protects them from attack or repercussion for doing so.  We have whistleblower laws in the US, which protects people both in the corporate world and within government.  They must take the correct steps to right the wrong in the correct manner, through law makers and protectors, our federal government, even when it may be elements within the government that is doing wrong.  We can argue all day on the feds and their roles as protectors, that’s a discussion for another day.

WikiLeaks founder and editor, Julian Assange has said he does this to change current policies and direction in Afghanistan.  That is not being a whistle-blower, not even close.  Whistle-blowers try to stop what they believe to be illegal.  Wanting to shape policy of another country is not your place Julian, I don’t think any US citizen with a right to vote gave you that power.  These are decisions for the American people and their elected officials to decide.

No, his motives are not that high and mighty.  I’m sure he hates all the publicity he and his site are getting.  I’m sure he also hates all the loonies and anarchists who are drooling over him and what he’s doing.  He loves the attention, and it’s nothing about to better anything.

UPDATE: Even human rights groups are understanding what he’s doing is dangerous.  Without blanking out names, he’s putting countless Afghani people who are helping in danger.  There are reasons these sort of documents are not published for all to see.  There are many details of operations and names of people who are put in danger because of it.  His response… The rights group should help in blanking out the names.  Wait, Mr. Assange, you want them to do a job you’re too lazy to do.  If you were so worried and had a higher motive, why would you push it onto someone else to do.

His actions give all others who annually take real chances and are real whistle-blowers and have good motives in doing so, and do it the right way.

UPDATE 2 (August 23 2010): So, Julian Assange and Wikileaks seek transparency from government and corporations?  They want this, yet they keep their own funding secret.  From reading this story, they register themselves in any way possible to avoid paying taxes and hide the money and where it’s coming from.  Hello pot, this is kettle.