Jonathan Ong's Blog

I’m voting for legalizing marijuana in California, but I don’t smoke weed. In fact, I find it a waste of time, unproductive and haven’t smoked in years. Still, it’s a waste of money, but that doesn’t mean it should be illegal.

Marijuana itself is risk free. Marijuana itself does not kill. Tobacco and alcohol kill way more people than marijuana, but they’re still legal. If the world smoked marijuana, there would be world peace because people would enjoy being high. The health affects of marijuana are still very debated, but there seems to be both positive and negative side effects, but marijuana shouldn’t be illegal just because it’ll risk brain loss in people. One fact is true though: cannabinoid receptors are the most abundant G protein-coupled receptor in the brain. The human brain was made or has evolved for marijuana.

Legalizing marijuana doesn’t mean that the government is condoning marijuana. Legalizing means that it will no longer criminalize you for doing so. A person is not a criminal until you brand him a criminal, and I personally don’t believe a person is a criminal when he or she just wants to smoke a joint and share some weed with his friends. If marijuana is a crime; it’s a victimless crime. In a free society, there’s a gap between whats encouraged and supported and things that are discouraged and banned. This gap is called tolerance and allows people to make their own mistakes without having cops come around to make things become worse.

However, criminalizing marijuana does kill. A large portion of Mexican Drug Cartels‘ profit is from marijuana, and these men are willing to kill cops and innocent people for money. By legalizing marijuana, you are taking away a large portion of the Mexican Drug Cartels’ profit and, consequently, power. There will be less to fight over, and thus less violence in Mexico, on the border, and in the U.S. due to the drug trade.

But the savings do not start there. This will lead to decreased expenses on law enforcement which are only hired because we make laws that requires enforcing. In fact, when marijuana is legalized, there will be companies that will begin selling them. Think of Marlboro selling their own marijuana cigarettes. The best part is that now that large companies are producing them, regulations and taxation will be easier. Instead of spending money on drug enforcement, we can gain tax revenue from selling marijuana.

But overall, my decision lies upon America’s idea of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. The government shouldn’t tell its citizens what it can and cannot do as long as no one gets hurt. In fact, it’s the citizens that should be telling the government what it can and cannot do. By legalizing marijuana, I am upholding the foundations of America and our freedom of choice.

The Afghanistan and Iraq wars have created a burden on the federal budget deficit. Up to date, these wars combined have cost the federal government over $1 trillion, close to the federal budget deficit estimate of $1.25 trillion for fiscal year 2011. At least Saudi Arabia paid for $40 billion of the $60 billion cost of the Gulf War. While Congress debates whether to sign a health care bill that costs less than $1 trillion over ten years and provides help to a large proportion of its citizens, it without hesitation allows the Afghanistan war to drag, providing little benefit to almost any U.S. citizens. The questions are, “Is war worth the price?” “Could our tax dollars be allocated more efficiently?”

A common misconception is that war stimulates the economy. World War II did not pull the U.S. out of the depression but instead only distracted citizens from their domestic struggles. The real stimulus derived from the U.S.’s strong post-war infrastructure which European and Asian countries lacked due to the war’s devastation. Only the U.S. was able to provide the world the goods and services necessary for reconstruction, stimulating the economy in the process. Guns do not contribute to society, does not make the economy more efficient, and does not provide a service others are incapable of providing, though it plays a role in preventing economically stifling environments.

However, the preparation of war does in fact stimulate the economy due to investments in research and development. Though NASA’s goals may sound farfetched and impractical, its research provides technology applicable to almost everyone and its needs provides a market for the private sector’s own R&D. Allocation of resources towards R&D also provides jobs to American scientists and engineers, ensuring the U.S. remains on the forefront of science and technology. Whereas the benefit of war ends when the enemy surrenders, the benefit of R&D has no bounds.

An undeniable fact is that more Americans die from lack of health care and car accidents than from terrorism every year. Are the hundreds of billions spent every year on war worth the possible benefits? Are the economic repercussions of a large federal budget deficit worth the potentially few American lives saved every year from terrorism? Do future generations prefer to spend their tax dollars on accumulated interest rather than health care or infrastructure?

But there is no purpose in discussing an issue without providing a possible solution. A paradigm shift in war tactics is necessary. It is impossible to weed out these dedicated terrorists through brute force; we need strategy and technology. Our tax dollars should be focused not on deployment but on R&D, technology such as Boston Dynamic’s BigDog which would allow the war to be fought more efficiently in the future with less manpower, less casualties, and less deployment costs. A strong, long term military presence is economically unsustainable and reaps very little benefit to the international community. Why spend money on deploying excess troops in foreign countries when we could spend that money on infrastructure and help the citizens at home?

“I’m trying to sum up President Obama’s first 11 months in office. He gave billions to Wall Street, cracked down on illegal immigrants getting health care, and he’s sending 30,000 troops to Afghanistan. He may go down in history as our greatest Republican president ever.” – Jay Leno

I’m not a Jay Leno fan. I’ve tried to watch his show but couldn’t resist changing the channel, but this joke struck me as quite true. Many Obama supports have lost their hope in him as he seemingly disregarded his campaign promises. The SNL clip of his accomplishments does a very good job of summarizing. Many hoped for change, but change did not come.

Most of his supporters saw Obama as far to the left. Not trying to be racist but he was black, and coupled with being a Democrat, appealed greatly to the poor. Others were social liberals who only cared for irrelevant platforms such as same-sex marriages and abortion rights. In fact, Obama was not a proponent of same-sex marriages but was in favor of civil unions, a platform in which I believe.

When I voted for him as a Republican, I only saw three main differences between him and McCain. The lack of differences between these two candidates made me choose the more intelligent one without hesitation:

1. The importance of health care reform, which for many people is necessary. I personally don’t care.
2. His tax plan, which was more fiscally responsible than McCain’s. Plus, I believe in progressive taxes and McCain’s leaned more towards fair/regressive. Huckabee’s FairTax plan was regressive and thus I couldn’t support him at all.
3. His intelligence. McCain is not intelligent. He’s only where he is because he has been painted a war hero.

However, once you become President, there is information you did not have before that factor into your decisions. Sure, Obama wanted to get out of Afghanistan, but he somehow realized that this was a war he had to win, not abandon, and decided to increase the number of troops. Either he had to follow his generals’ advice or surrender and retreat; there is no middle ground. No President can keep all of his campaign promises, but campaign promises and the campaign itself are necessary to understand the candidate himself. Obama’s care for the poor and his slick campaign proved that he would be a very effective President.

However, this does not mean that in my personal opinion victory is necessary. My personal belief is that this Afghan war is futile and that we should pull out immediately.  This war is difficult because Afghanistan’s mountainous terrain limits the use of ground vehicles; soldiers have to rely on walking the hot deserts. We should learn from the Russians. War does not stimulate the economy and the war budget has a severe impact on our already growing fiscal deficit.

I would have also allowed economical Darwinism to run its course in Wall Street’s fiasco, but our economy would probably be worse off right now if that happened. This of course doesn’t mean I agree with his actions however. In the long run, Obama’s policies will cause inflation and economic inefficiencies, but Obama is not worried about the future since he will most likely not still be President (not that he won’t get re-elected, but long term refers to more than 8 years into the future). He did his best to make everyone happy right “now”, though in a few years everyone might still be crying again as the real issues beneath the facade of government intervention unravels. Recession is healthy for an economy as it weeds out the inefficient business and thus the government should minimize its interventions. The banks that failed obviously failed because they were not intelligent banks.

Again, I don’t care for health care reform. As a Republican, I approve of my Democrat President.

As a UC Berkeley student, I’ve experienced all these complaints about tuition increases. When I first arrived here, tuition was about $3,700 a semester. Next semester, Spring 2010, the tuition is going to be $5500, so the annual tuition has risen from less than $8,000 to about $11,000, which is about an 8% annual increase a year. Considering our current fiscal and economic situation, 8% annual increase in fees for something important like education is not extreme. California is bankrupt, so the university needs to attain money through other means. Obviously, you’re going to have to raise tuition.

In America, we should put this tuition into perspective: Stanford’s annual tuition is $38,000 according to USNews. For less than a 1/3 of the tuition, you can attend a university that is still ranked top 20 nationally, assuming of course that you are expected to pay full tuition (student’s whose family income is less than $100,000 a year pay no tuition at Stanford). The purpose of the UC system is to provide an affordable alternative to private schools and does a very good job at it. Of course, you can compare our colleges to more socialist countries’ such as Norway where students are basically paid to go to school, but we’re assuming you’d like to find a job in America where employers know what college your from.

With all these protests going on around UC campuses, I noticed two distinct traits of students and of America in general that I greatly dislike. The first is entitlement. People feel they are entitled to all sorts of amenities from the governments and institutions like free or affordable education and health care. The second is that much of our country would rather sit around and talk about their feelings than go out and do something about it. Protesting tuition increases benefits society in no way, but trying to figure out a way to solve our debt issue or going out and finding a job instead of protesting to pay for your college are both more efficient ways in solving your problems.

Read our constitution. It does not explicitly or implicitly say that we are entitled to anything concerning education or healthcare. This does not mean that our nation wouldn’t be better off if we had free education or healthcare, it just means that it is not its responsibility. Sure, it would be nice if everyone had free education and free healthcare, but who is going to pay for it? The ones advocating free healthcare are mainly the poor who can’t pay for it themselves and thus attempt to make the government pay for it. Californians are not entitled to education, though California seems to be the most progressive state in terms of education. As a Californian, you are not entitled to a high quality education you can afford, though California is doing its best.

We live in America, a nation founded on the freedom to choose. You have the option of choosing which college to attend. If you can’t afford to go to a UC, contemplate attending a Cal State instead or attending your first two years at a junior college. This could save you at least half of your tuition. Choose a college where the living expenses aren’t high. Sure, UCLA is a very nice campus with a great atmosphere, but it is ridiculously expensive. If you can’t afford it, go to UC Riverside where the only natural resource is land. What people don’t realize is that where you attend college for undergrad doesn’t matter, only graduate schools matter.

In Berkeley, everyday there are people handing out fliers and pamphlets trying to get their message across and never do I see someone who responds. Do these people actually think they are changing anything? How much paper have you wasted? How much of that time could you spend on something actually productive? Americans love talking and complaining about their feelings and doing nothing to solve it. Here’s a clue: no one gives a shit about your feelings. The math department used to receive a large amount of money from NSF under the VIGRE grant, but they lost it when they did not adhere to their rules; math professors at UC Berkeley do not like to “talk about their feelings” with students. You see, math professors at UC Berkeley do NOT fuck around.

A much more efficient way of getting your message across is to be an example. Work instead of hand out fliers and use that money for your cause and let it be known what you did. I’m sure that if you are a fraction of spectacular, you will touch some souls. No one’s going to listen to you on the street or read one of your flies; no one wants to know your feelings. How about instead of protesting these tuition increases, you find a job to pay for your tuition or you figure out a way to get us out of this mess.

Today, about 20 protestors locked themselves inside Wheeler Hall. The campus was disrupted by people falsely activated fire alarms. They wanted some 38 laid off staff to return to their jobs and to have amnesty for protesting. Do these protestors think they are accomplishing anything? As long as no one gets hurts, no one really cares. Professors don’t have to teach and students don’t have to attend class. Everyone else just thinks you’re a retard. The staff isn’t going to be re-hired, our university can’t afford it.

Of course, this tuition increase is by no means fair. Only a very small majority are actually responsible for our debt crises, yet we all suffer for it. However, no one ever said life is fair. If life was fair, Patrick Swayze would still be alive. The problem with California is how we spend our money. Instead of putting more money into our educational system, we’re spending $10 billion a year on our penal system. Do we really need to incarcerate a large proportion of our residents? Is isolating a group of questionable criminals more important and more effective than educating them? Perhaps if they had the opportunity…

I am however unhappy with how the UC system’s tuition works. Sure, Stanford costs $40,000 on tuition alone, but more than 75% of the students don’t pay the full tuition and receive financial aid directly from the university. Students whose families make less than $100,000 don’t pay any tuition and those who make significantly less pay no living expenses. UC students have to rely on Cal grants or Pel grants or whatever they are called which are usually unreliable. I know my roommate started working in a lab and since he made enough money from it, he had to start paying full tuition. Basically, he works for free.

What the UC system needs is an even more progressive tuition. It should resemble Stanford’s but at a much lower max tuition. Us wealthy people could and should afford a higher tuition. For us, not attending college is a loss, and for the poor, attending college is a gain. Thus, it is worth more to us due to loss aversion.

Let us examine the following conversation rigorously. All comments will be in italics and in bullet points. I could probably have been harsh and actually tweeted these comments, but I didn’t know how harsh I wanted to be until the end.

jongleberry: who’s down to picket a Tea Party protest with me?! LOL: http://i30.tinypic.com/34ewz6u.jpg

• I bid thee not go to lemonparty.org. I purposely did not hyperlink it. BTW, my offer still stands.

jongery: So you want to be a counter protester to a tea party? Your Obama koolaid must taste great,we know its less filling.Go Broke.

• Notice: the random capitalizations, the lack of spaces, the rhetorical device of “Koolaid”, and the ambiguous trailing imperative sentence. I know twitter only allows you to type 140 characters, but seriously? This was the first sign of trouble. From now on, I will never overestimate anyone with bad grammar.

jongleberry: that doesn’t even make sense.

jongery: a lot of things don’t make sense like printing money and expecting the future to pay for it.ask yourself,Why can’t we pay now?

• Because your dumb ass president got us into this mess. Your president bailed the banks out.

jongery: a lot of things don’t make sense like the term free healthcare,or a 60 trillion dollar debt but why protest at a tea party?

• 60 trillion dollar debt? We don’t live in Zimbabwe.

jongleberry: you know, I might actually care what you say if you had proper grammar and punctuation. And I’m anti-healthcare, war, and bail out.

jongery: and why are you anti- tea party mr. grammar,by the way,I have read your tweets and you r not beaming out extra intelligence

• I think “extra” intelligence is unnecessary. For me, just some suffices, which you lack in comparison.

jongleberry: i’m anti tea party movement because half the people don’t know what they’re talking about. same for the left side.

jongery: well,i was probably wrong about you,i still disagree,you know if you watch the left portray it,it’s a set up,i was there…

• The Left and the Right are metaphorical in a political spectrum. You can’t actually be “there” at the Left.

jongery: there was a feeling at that tea party event that is indescribable,people there love their country and understand freedom

• You sound like you’re in a religious movement, not a political movement. You’re unintelligent pleas would probably be better suited there.

jongery: tea party is pretty simple to understand,less government,less taxes,less spending,obey the constitution,less corruption,ok

• OK.

jongery: people that attend tea parties just know that something is going very wrong,let’s not make it complicated,$60 trillion debt

• Are you talking about the national debt or the fiscal budget deficit? Wait… are you talking about Credit Default Swaps? You do realize that those are caused by the private sector, not the public sector, right?

jongleberry: remember, most of our debt and problems are from the Bush era. At least Obama’s going to spend money on us, not other countries.

jongery: that koolaid must be good,obama is going into debt 5 times as much as bush,and he is in iraq and afghanistan still

• I don’t understand this Koolaid reference. Is it because Obama is black?

jongleberry: i hope you know that with that horrible grammar, punctuation, and lame rhetorical devices no one is going to take you seriously.

jongery: stop avoiding issues liberal man from san fran

• I already told you I’m not liberal.

jongery: you worry about grammar and punctuation,I will bring substance,something you are incapable of,your tweets are zeros,

• I don’t understand how a tweet can be “zero”. Mathematically, a tweet can not equal zero unless you are declaring a variable’s value. And I don’t know how it can be more than one zero unless it’s a vector. I’, pretty sure my tweets can’t be formed into vectors of all zeros since it has to at least be binary to hold some information.

jongery: I bet you can’t wait for an ambiguouslygay tweet to cum your way,maybe ladygaga inspires your political whining,you little jerk

• You know you win an internet battle when your opponent calls you a jerk.

jongery: we have decided to move on without you,you are obviously a lost cause,a total loss,it would take too much time to repair you

• Who are “we” in this context? I never knew I was speaking to more than one person… unless you suffer from Dissociative Identity Disorder, which is different Schizophrenia might I add.

jongery: Your last tweet talking about my grammr,punct,and rhetorical devices is written so poorly. It does reveal how foolish you are

• My WordPress just underlined “,punct,” for a grammatical mistake and I just seriously laughed out loud.

jongleberry: i’m sorry you took offense to that statement.

• I should’ve said something childish like, “Aw, are you about to cry? Would you like some cheese with that whine?”

jongery: your words “I hope you know that with that” ,and relook at your tweets,they aren’t written well at all,c’mon brain stem

• Actually, that is correct English. I think that all that “that” perplexed that thing inside that head that some (apes) might consider a brain. Let me introduce you to a little something called Schoolhouse Rock! You might learn a thing or two. Or not.

jongery: bye goofy,i know you have to catch up with ladygaga and ambiguouslygay,enjoy your san francisco treats

• He totally got me with the ambiguouslygay, I admit, but homophobia much? And Lady GaGa’s phantom penis has more talent and intelligence than you ever will. And pussy.

However, you can’t learn about a man just from a conversation with him. You must do some research! The link on his Twitter is his MySpace. Yes, a MySpace. If you are interested in a laugh, check it out. Let me summarize his MySpace for you:

• Friends: 11, 1 of which is Tom.
• Comments: 4, 3 of which are from the same person speaking Spanish, sending gifts, discussing MySpace applications. The last makes him look like a creeper: “hey cute stuff how are ya an no my lips are not digitally enhanced???? why would i do that
  they are my REAL LIPS just like my ass an my breasts come on now what the hell I am not fake”
• College: Florida Southern College, 1982-1983 and University of Connecticut, 1984-1987. Majors: Baseball,Booze,Psychology, Minor: Studying, Clubs: Streaking Club
• Age: 45
• Status: Single. Sorry.
• Occupation: Hack

I seriously LOL’d. I don’t think I’d have a MySpace or Facebook if I didn’t have any friends or anything half interesting to post. And his occupation? He’s a Chicago taxi driver.

Looking at his other tweets, you find that he is a follower of Glenn Beck. Have you actually watched one of his shows? I seriously wonder how he’s still on TV. Oh wait, he’s on Fox.

I found that there are a lot of people who follow unreliable pundits like Beck or Limbaugh, mostly outside of California. They seem to be uneducated, emotional, irrational, and politically charged. I consequently lose faith in America. I’m anti-war, anti-bailout, and anti-healthcare, but please, let’s be smart about it. Take some economics courses. Learn the idea of checking a source’s authority. You remind me of my mom except my mom channels her energy into religious movements, which you should probably think about doing.