Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
It's funny.  Laugh. United States News

Ask the 'Geek Candidate' for California Governor 1109

No, not Arnold Schwarzenegger. We're talking abut Georgy Russell, who studied computer science at UC Berkeley, often wears ThinkGeek clothing, has a blog, reads Slashdot, and knows how to run Linux. Since this California electoral free-for-all has turned into a worldwide spectator sport as bizarre as any other 'Reality TV' show currently airing, Slashdot might as well get in on the media frenzy and interview a candidate, and Georgy is the obvious choice. We'll email Georgy 10 of the highest-moderated questions, and publish her answers (and, yes, the chosen questions in the same post) as soon as she replies.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Ask the 'Geek Candidate' for California Governor

Comments Filter:
  • by mjmalone ( 677326 ) * on Monday August 11, 2003 @12:00PM (#6666213) Homepage
    Do you think the california recall election is fair? I understand that a lot of Californians are unhappy with Gray Davis' performance, but he WAS elected by the people, if people dislike him then they can vote him out of office when his term is up. It seems unfair that Davis needs a majority of votes to remain in office, but a replacement candidate could be selected by a plurality. It is possible, and quite likely, that Davis will be voted out with 60% or fewer votes. That would mean 40% or more voters essentially voted for Davis, but he would not be the winner, one of the 400+ other candidates on the ballot would and in all liklihood that candidate will have received far fewer than 40% of the votes.

    This whole situation seems like a gross abuse of a recall system that relies on honesty and virtuous politicians. Unfortunately California is no such utopia. By running in the election you have shown your support for it, how do you justify this support given the evident problems.
  • Budget (Score:5, Insightful)

    by QuantumRiff ( 120817 ) on Monday August 11, 2003 @12:03PM (#6666256)
    How would you propose to balance California's budget? Cutbacks, or new revenue opportunities? If it is cutbacks, where would your biggest cutbacks come from?
  • Re:Miss Russell, (Score:5, Insightful)

    by paitre ( 32242 ) on Monday August 11, 2003 @12:05PM (#6666281) Journal
    She's a geekgrrl, and she's hot.
    Now, then, why do you -THINK- she's so popular?
    (Oh, and she's a twenty-something).
  • by AntiOrganic ( 650691 ) on Monday August 11, 2003 @12:07PM (#6666291) Homepage
    The funny thing is that Gray Davis is doing a decent job. Much of the deficit is Enron's fault (I seem to recall that taking roughly $30 billion to clean up), and besides that he's taken the $38 billion deficit and whittled it down to a quarter of that.
  • by Voltas ( 222666 ) on Monday August 11, 2003 @12:08PM (#6666323) Homepage Journal
    With all the "Star Power" and the number of candidates that obviously are looking for media attention (I.E. Gary Colemen ), do you really thing that the candidates or the office really going to be taken serious when its all said and done?

    Won't this whole election fiasco cripple anyone who actually wins?
  • Media Attention (Score:3, Insightful)

    by BigDork1001 ( 683341 ) on Monday August 11, 2003 @12:09PM (#6666333) Homepage
    Do you feel that all the media attention around Arnold and the other big name people is making for an unfair election that won't give people, like yourself, with valid points and opinions a fair chance to express your views?
  • Re:Miss Russell, (Score:4, Insightful)

    by garcia ( 6573 ) * on Monday August 11, 2003 @12:10PM (#6666342)
    she's American, she's FINE, she's obviously well educated, she grew up through hard times (was raised "poor" so her bio says), and she's tackling some important issues.

    While I feel (see here [slashdot.org])that some of her issues are going to cause detrimental harm to her campaign due to the current status of most of the voting population, I think that people could possibly relate to her (especially 18-29 aged voters, sadly, most of that group doesn't vote).
  • by prichardson ( 603676 ) on Monday August 11, 2003 @12:12PM (#6666375) Journal
    Just a note on illegal immigrants: They are the best thing to ever happen to the US economy. They pay taxes (sales tax and the federal taxes deducted from their paychecks). They don't draw on any social programs (want to stay under the radar). They aren't avoiding prperty tax (they own no prperty). Also, they stay as well behaved as possible (if they get arrested they get tossed out). Illegal immagrants take NOTHIING from the rest of the population.
  • by kevin lyda ( 4803 ) * on Monday August 11, 2003 @12:13PM (#6666392) Homepage
    do you spout off stupid platitudes about "the market" and individual rights? or do you actually believe in the concept of "society" and the social, economic and quality of life benefits of a healthy community. do you believe that we should try to build a better society then the one we received? for instance we get free, good quality primary and secondary education - will you work towards free third level education? previous generations invested in roads in california, would your administration do more to invest in public transport? will you work towards better health care with better access? will you continue to inflame the gross xenophobia in california's public discourse, or will you try to have a more sensible discussion about immigrants - for instance nafta allows for the fre-flow of goods and capital amount the us, mexico and canada, but not labour. how is that free trade?
  • Re:Marijuana (Score:2, Insightful)

    by kmurray ( 166822 ) on Monday August 11, 2003 @12:16PM (#6666428)
    As with most drugs, 13 year olds shouldn't be using them. Do you think a 13 year old who started using alcohol would meet his/her potential?
    Also, ask a 13 year old which is easier to get: illegal marijuana or legal beer? Sometimes making something legal helps.
  • by zoneball ( 568363 ) on Monday August 11, 2003 @12:17PM (#6666443)
    A good leader must surround him or herself with with the best advisors and experts within their respective fields. Who will you be bringing in to your campaign and administration, and what are their qualifications?
  • budget crisis (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 11, 2003 @12:18PM (#6666454)
    What will you do to resolve California's budget crisis? Raise taxes, cut spending, or both? If you raise taxes, what kinds of taxes will you raise and by how much? If you cut spending, what specific programs will you cut, and by how much?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 11, 2003 @12:18PM (#6666456)
    no, a good majority of Mexican women come to the US to give birth. Their children are then legal residents and are entitled to care. Those people don't contribute to our country in any way (at least for 15 years).

    You believe that that is a positive thing for our country?
  • by schnarff ( 557058 ) <[moc.ffranhcs] [ta] [xela]> on Monday August 11, 2003 @12:20PM (#6666474) Homepage Journal
    Since you're a "geek candidate", you're obviously well-aware of the massive short- and long-term savings California could achieve by switching its computing systems to free, Open Source projects. Considering the current budget crisis, I'm also assuming that such a switch has probably crossed your mind, at least fleetingly.

    What I want to know is, do you think that passing a law mandating the use of free software wherever it does the job properly would be proper? While many people here at /. feel that such legislation is obviously correct, I personally feel that mandation of almost any sort from government, particularly when it relates to engineering choices, is likely to cause problems from a technical standpoint, not to mention the fact that it restricts freedom -- something I think we all want -- unnecessarily, since something as simple as executive direction to consider free projects could likely achieve the same objective.

    Thank You,
    Alex Kirk
  • by Randolpho ( 628485 ) on Monday August 11, 2003 @12:22PM (#6666500) Homepage Journal
    I'd just like to point out that the California recall vote is not very different from a vote of no confidence in parliamentary systems (perhaps closer to Germany's constructive vote of no confidence than others). The only real difference is that the candidates don't have to be members of the legislature.

    If you think that a vote of no confidence is fair, which happens quite often in the "democratic" world, then you should think the California recall is fair.

    That said, I happen to dislike votes of no confidence. I'm all for removing an executive from office should (s)he prove incompetent, but holding an election to replace that person should not occur. That is the purpose of offices such as the U.S. Vice President, or, in California's case, the Lt. Governor. What *should* happen is that, should a recall vote occur and Gov. Davis is removed, the Lt. Governor should take his place and an election should be held for Lt. Governor (which is elected seperately by California law, IIRC). Furthermore, that vote should take place in the legislature, not by popular vote.

    However, that's me. Feel free to argue with me about it. :)
  • Firearms laws (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 11, 2003 @12:22PM (#6666509)
    California has some of the most draconian firearms laws in the nation. What will you do to protect/return the Second Amendment freedoms of Californians?
  • by gone.fishing ( 213219 ) on Monday August 11, 2003 @12:25PM (#6666529) Journal
    I heard that experts say with so many people running for the office it is possible that the victor may win with just twenty percent of the popular vote.

    Let's assume for a moment that you won with only 21% of the vote. It is likely there would be some resentment from the constituancy. With such a lack of support from the voters the legislature and even the judicial branch may see you as weak or even wounded.

    What would you do your first days in office to gain popular support and show the other politicans that you are really a person of the people, by the people, and for the people?
  • by cheezedawg ( 413482 ) on Monday August 11, 2003 @12:32PM (#6666598) Journal
    Do you think the california recall election is fair?

    What is unfair about it? It is a constitutional way for the people to re-assert their power in California. There are plenty of reasons why Davis should lose his job, but the single most important reason is that the people don't want him in office anymore- thats why the recall statutes were put on the books in the first place!

    I personally love this whole thing. The only people that are upset by this process are people like Davis that think that they are losing power. They can't stand that they have no control over what is happening or what candidates end up on the ballot. As far as I am concerned, the further this gets from the typical choice between two boring candidates slinging mud at each other, the better.
  • by GigsVT ( 208848 ) on Monday August 11, 2003 @12:33PM (#6666616) Journal
    I'm a Fiscal Conservative, Social Liberal.

    I guess people are afraid of the L word these days?
  • by kevin lyda ( 4803 ) * on Monday August 11, 2003 @12:35PM (#6666632) Homepage
    so prior to receiving emergency medical treatment you should have your citizenship checked? if someone falls off a building or has a heart attack they *must* be treated in the first few minutes or they will die. and the initial treatment costs a lot of money - ambulance, staff, drugs, rooms.

    but you think the first thing the paramedics should do is "check their papers."

    gee, glad i don't live in america any more.

    and you're assuming that *all* illegal immigrants came over the border knowing they were illegal. a fair number of illegal immigrants are brought over with promises of legal immigration and legal jobs. a lot of internet add servers do geo-targeting and they know my ip addresses are outside the states so i see ads everyday advertising companies that will bring me over to work in the states legally (or so they say).

    and these are american companies exploiting foreign workers. often in high risk jobs with little regard for osha.

    and you favour leaving them bleeding in the streets.

    nice.
  • by rjamestaylor ( 117847 ) <rjamestaylor@gmail.com> on Monday August 11, 2003 @12:38PM (#6666673) Journal
    Er, the recall is part of the California election law, not some kind of new ploy. In fact, Gray Davis is on record as supporting the recall of elected officials (not himself, strangely...not).

    The reason for the uproar is that he purposefully hid the size of the deficit prior to the election and within days of (barely) winning re-election (against a brainless buffoon, Bill 'Slander' Simon) he released the $30 billion deficit numbers. Brainless Bill Simon said the deficit would be over $25 billion and Joe "Gray" Davis denied this in the campaign, saying Simon was inflating the numbers unfairly and the deficit would only be $10 billion at the most.

    BTW, the reason for the deficit is NOT the energy scams run by the likes of Enron, et al. That fiasco is being passed directly on to businesses and consumers in the form of high rates all because Do-Nothing Davis sat on the crisis, eating his To-Fu Berry shakes and Turkey sandwiches, for over a year until he signed the stupid multi-year rate agreement with the power cos.

    This recall is not about right-wingers upset at Democrats -- those signing the 1.7 million signatures for the recall election came from a cross-section of political opinion in Ca.

    Lastly, the recall is an ELECTION. If the voters want to keep this train-wreck of a governor, they can say so at the polls.

    That is the legal election process in California.

    Fair? What a stupid, insipid question.

  • Fiscal Dicipline?? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by foooo ( 634898 ) on Monday August 11, 2003 @12:41PM (#6666700) Journal
    Georgy is the only candidate courageous enough to put forward the tough decisions Californians will have to make to restore fiscal discipline to California.

    For about 80%, the vast majority of Californians, the increased taxes necessary to fund universal health care would be less than their current costs for private health care. A new system would allow for much needed accountability for health coverage, and create competition based on quality of care rather than cost of care.



    How can you (on the same web page) talk about your fiscal dicipline and introduce an idea for universal health care?

    Additionally, in a single payer system there is *no* competition. Is your universal health care really universal or are you unsure of the meaning of competition??

    Clearly you haven't thought a lot of this through. There are typos on your web pages and *worse* there are logical fallacies in your political rhetoric.

    On the other hand I love your approach to gay marriage and marijuana. But that's the Libertarian in me... not the liberal.

    Why should I vote for you?? (Aside from the fact that you're hella cute and also geeky?)



    May I suggest a new sloagan for you??

    Georgy for Govenor. The same political hot air... now tempered with good looks!

    ~foooo

    PS. I don't live in Kalifornia, but if I did I'd spend my vote on someone less bleeding heart and opt for a more practical candidate.
  • by bourne ( 539955 ) on Monday August 11, 2003 @12:44PM (#6666742)

    They pay taxes (sales tax and the federal taxes deducted from their paychecks).

    Please pardon what may be a stupid question, but since federal tax withholding is done using social security numbers, and since illegal aliens don't have SSNs, how does this work? Wouldn't that be a big red flag for the IRS that someone is employing illegal aliens? I thought, rather, that most illegal aliens worked "under the table," with no taxes being withheld or accounting being performed.

  • by scupper ( 687418 ) * on Monday August 11, 2003 @12:45PM (#6666753) Homepage
    Did Assemblyman Dean Florez go far enough with investigation the Oracle deal and Gray Davis prior to Speaker Wesson shutting him down?
  • by siskbc ( 598067 ) on Monday August 11, 2003 @12:49PM (#6666803) Homepage
    Do you think the california recall election is fair? I understand that a lot of Californians are unhappy with Gray Davis' performance, but he WAS elected by the people

    I would disagree with the original statement that he was elected by the people. I live in California, and the major problem is the nature of the "Open Primary" system. Basically what happened is that the Dems got the word out, and they voted in mass for the weaker of his potential Rebpublican opponents (ie, Bill Simon vs. Richard Riordan) in the Republican primary. This was enough to throw the elections. In addition, during hte *Republican* primary, Davis ran a massive number of attack ads against Riordan, the stronger Republican candidate.

    So in the Republican primary, you had the Dems+1/3 Republicans voting for Simon, and 2/3 Republicans voting for Riordan. Of course, Riordan lost the primary, and Simon was such a weak candidate he couldn't beat Davis on his own merit.

    So if you look at it that way, no, Davis was not elected by a fair majority of the population in a fair election. He bought it. People didn't like him then, and less now.

    if people dislike him then they can vote him out of office when his term is up.

    He's screwed this state up enough that he doesn't deserve the extra time. No thanks.

    This whole situation seems like a gross abuse of a recall system that relies on honesty and virtuous politicians. Unfortunately California is no such utopia. By running in the election you have shown your support for it, how do you justify this support given the evident problems.

    I will also say that Davis' popularity, which was never high, nosedived after the election when he was utterly unable to get a budget done and when people saw his choices for budget cuts. Of course, some people are dumb and get pissed at any budget cuts - I'll admit they are necessary. But his choices were horrendous - cutting education as one of the first things to go, that's just criminal.

    I will be voting to get the hell rid of Davis. He's an idiot, he's dishonest (ask him how much money he took from Enron and Cisco), and he needs to leave. The basis for the recall is fair, and he's earned it by losing the trust of CA.

    See ya, Gray.

  • by arnie_apesacrappin ( 200185 ) on Monday August 11, 2003 @12:53PM (#6666858)
    They pay taxes (sales tax and the federal taxes deducted from their paychecks

    Do you have evidence of illegal immigrants getting an actual paycheck with federal taxes withheld? I have lived around various groups of illegal immigrants (crop workers in southern Georgia, construction workers in Atlanta). To the best of my knowledge, all of them were paid in cash, with no taxes being taken from their wages.

  • by jdreed1024 ( 443938 ) on Monday August 11, 2003 @12:54PM (#6666874)
    They pay taxes (sales tax and the federal taxes deducted from their paychecks).

    Uh, no. Well, OK, they pay sales tax, but so does everyone who buys anything. A large majority of them do NOT have taxes deducated from their paychecks, or even have paychecks at all (cash under the table), since if they got a social security number, that wouldn't help them "stay under the radar", and you can't deduct taxes from a paycheck without a social security number.

  • by kevin lyda ( 4803 ) * on Monday August 11, 2003 @12:54PM (#6666879) Homepage
    right. the person themselves is illegal. now it's all clear.

    hm. i suppose putting them in garbage bags and dumping them in the landfill would just use up valuable landfill space. maybe they could just be ground up and used for dog chow.

    yes, i think that's the way to go.
  • by gsfprez ( 27403 ) on Monday August 11, 2003 @12:57PM (#6666904)
    Lets look at your generally assumed positions - 1 at a time...

    They pay taxes. Federal taxes deducted from their paychecks.

    Where exactly is that fscking line item on the envelope full of singles that they get at the end of the day?

    They are not a draw on social programs?

    The county of Los Angeles ALONE - in 1 year paid out $350 MILLION (one county, one year) last year in medical expendatures to "undocumented workers". How do they know this? If you have a valid SSN, you get MediCAL. If you don't have a valid SSN, they simply bill your (ficticious) residence. The cost last year was $380 million. (LA Times)

    If they get arrested they get tossed out?

    It costs the state of California 7 times more to incarcerate "undocumented" Californians [ca.gov] than it will cost to run this recall election.

    They do not have to pay any insurance costs for their "vehicles" because they do not bother to register them, because, like you said, they avoid the DMV.

    They most often use public transportation - which is by all accounts in every location in California a tax user, not a tax producer - because all state county, and city public transportation systems run at a loss, they do not make the cities/state money.

    They do not pay for the cost of their children's education - because they do not pay income tax because they do not, on average, make enough to pay taxes since most of them make less than $22k a year.. below which, you do not pay federal income tax, and they can actually GET money back from the federal govnerment because you get $1000 for each child you have - the child tax credit.. so in the end, they MAKE more money off of the tax system alone than they put in.

    They pay sale tax (on good that they buy in stores, but not on goods such as private sale of foodstuffs like what the farmers will sell to them at the end of the day). And they pay property tax (as part of their cost of rent) - but since they live disproportionately more people/dwelling, the revenue generated per captia is far below non-Latino rates.

    In short - California is 100 times better than where they came from. Where they cam from they did not get free medical, free childbirth medical, free schooling for their kids, nearly free transportation costs, they don't get extorted by the cops as much as they did back in Mexico, China, Korea or whetever central American country they are from... and they get to be guarded by the best police, fire, and military protection in the world - without paying most of those nasty taxes that go to provide it all.

    The employers of these people have an unfair tax advantage - but far far more importantly, they do not have to pay worker's compensation insurance on them - which in the State of California is running around 75% of worker's wages right now/year... it may go to 125% within 5 years. That means if you hire a guy for $40k a year, it will cost you nrealy $100k to hire them - when its all said and done...

    This state is on the verge of total colapse - and it is because this state is responsible for the care, feeding (school lunches and breakfasts), and medical of non-trivial portions of other country's populations.

    I did not sign up for the recall because I want to see at what point people will "get it" - that you cannot run a state like this, or it will collapse. With the party in power now standing up things like the "end poverty in California committee" [ca.gov] movement in the state legislature - perhapse you remember that from the past.. Stalin and Lennin were both big proponents of the same ideals.

    I want Americans to feel first hand what socialism does to a state... i want them to experience total colapse of a state under the weight of open borders and unlimited government programs. Because it is obvious to me that most people still left i
  • by Phantasmo ( 586700 ) on Monday August 11, 2003 @01:02PM (#6666963)
    Costing more than double Canada's system per person, the U.S. health system eats up 13+% of U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) compared to Canada's 9%. And, tragically, for all the money it costs, the U.S. health system serves only a fraction of the population.

    A staggering 43 million Americans have no health coverage whatsoever and another 100 million are considered under-insured.

    - Why NOT Privatize [web.net]

    It looks like the US could easily afford health care for both "real citizens" as you call them and illegal immigrants.

    Besides, I'd rather pay an extra $10 in taxes this year than let some poor kid with a bullet in her stomach die on the street.

    Nobody wins unless everyone wins, right?
  • by mykepredko ( 40154 ) on Monday August 11, 2003 @01:06PM (#6666990) Homepage
    of The Simpson's as a (Slashdot) cultural common denominator.

    It brings up another interesting aspect of cultural power in this election; how many people will see Arnold as anything less than a hero? How many people will be influenced by his characters' ability to go against seemingly overwhelming odds to survive and succeed? This is not to say that the big guy isn't a good person - I was quite impressed by his charitable donations and interest in children. But he has gone against aliens, liquid metal assassins, sword weilding tribesmen, evil public servents and some villians too ridiculous to mention and succeeded each time.

    How will his opponents (Ms. Russell, this question is for you) fight against this vision in the public's mind so that their issues and faces can take center stage?

    myke
  • by litesgod ( 79941 ) * on Monday August 11, 2003 @01:06PM (#6666992) Journal
    Then let them come via legal channels and not come sneaking across the border!

    Look- I'm a Republican who believes that we need serious imigration reform, our policy is too restrictive (I know, not exactly the party line there). The southwest sees tons of illegals because we as a country won't let them come across in a legit manner. However, all that will change by giving illegals free health care is increasing the number of illegals. Politicians on both sides of the aisle spend way to much time fighting symptoms. Get to the cause- make these aliens legal and then allow them the same health care options the rest of America has.
  • What's to stop... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Coward the Anonymous ( 584745 ) on Monday August 11, 2003 @01:07PM (#6667007)
    the Lt. Govenor from organizing a recall so he can get the top job?

    Having another election is a Good Thing.
  • by HarveyBirdman ( 627248 ) on Monday August 11, 2003 @01:09PM (#6667024) Journal
    Why do I see nothing prominent on your site about attracting business to California? Who do you think is going to build (or pay for) your 100 square miles of solar panels? To his credit, the FIRST thing Arnold talked about in his first post-announcement press conference was getting business back to California. If you are not willing to address this, nothing else matters.

    It appears you might be in a segment of the political spectrum where you are duty bound to think of business as the Bad Guys, but I'd ask you to look beyond that. At least look for ways to attract smaller businesses which is where most of the job growth tends to occur anyway.

    I'm afraid your statements have too much ideological content. For example, there are reasons OTHER than "special interests" that prevent wide adoption of solar energy. Some of them have a solid scientific and economic basis. And the crack about "Oh, do we want to be like Bush's Texas" was also silly.

    A lot of us out here are really, really tired of that blame game nonsense. We don't want to hear California's woes blamed on Bush or 9/11 or El Nino or the flapping of a butterfly's wings in Argentina. What's done is done and now is now. What do you propose to FIX it?

  • by rossjudson ( 97786 ) on Monday August 11, 2003 @01:20PM (#6667125) Homepage
    What do open borders and unlimited government programs have to do with socialism? Nothing, of course. They are policies that are in no way related to socialism itself. You're dealing with a system that's out of control, not a problem with socialism.

    A socialist country can tightly control its borders, and choose a specific set of government programs that exist to benefit only citizens.

    As far as I know the worker's comp system in California is pretty much busted.

    Shiny jails and crumbling schools. That's what California is all about. Direct democracy == stupid tax laws == gradual decline.

    And why is it that nobody goes after the employers of these illegal immigrants? If employers started going to jail, the situation might change. How friggin' hard can it be to catch these people, anyway?
  • by ExoticMandibles ( 582264 ) on Monday August 11, 2003 @01:23PM (#6667144)
    In your issues paper [georgyforgov.com], you say you are for the legalization of marijuana. That's fine, so am I. However, marijuana is already legal in California for medical use, but can still be arrested, prosecuted, and incarcerated under federal law. [jointogether.org] So, if you were elected governor of California, of what possible relevance is your stand on marijuana?
  • by Lemmy Caution ( 8378 ) on Monday August 11, 2003 @01:25PM (#6667170) Homepage
    It should be noted that Georgy does not approve of the recall - like me and other who aren't particularly fond of Davis but understand what motivated the recall, she think its irresponsible, a waste of effort and money, and spiteful. However, as she points out, it does create a unique opportunity with a very low barrier for entry into the subsequent race, and that opportunity shouldn't be ignored.
  • Cattle (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Fantastic Lad ( 198284 ) on Monday August 11, 2003 @01:26PM (#6667177)
    Okay. I have a difficult question for you. Be careful. The spotlight is on.

    Television broadcasters and advertisers are schooled to direct their messages to an average 12 year-old mentality because that, unfortunately, has been proven by far the most effective way to get people to, 'Vote with their Wallets.'

    Likewise, success in politics, as has been demonstrated since the dawn of politics, and which is certainly true today, is almost never achieved by appealing to the minds of a "Self-motivated, rational and informed public." Success in politics is nearly always achieve by manipulating and then addressing base emotions through overly-simplified representations of issues. "People would rather believe a Simple Lie than a Complex Truth."

    --The simple fact that 'Arnie', whose primary claim to fame is physical size and a movie career where he played big guys with big guns and 'blowed stuff up real good', is actually in a real position to win, is an excellent example.

    So, (and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here by assuming you are *not* yet another deluded and/or self-serving jerk), how do you personally approach the whole problem that success in politics is largely based on manipulating like cattle the very voting public which it is the politician's job to respect and serve?


    -FL

  • Experience (Score:3, Insightful)

    by spamchang ( 302052 ) on Monday August 11, 2003 @01:26PM (#6667182) Journal
    Georgy,

    I understand what you mean when you say that Bush and Davis show that political experience is overrated. But I think that's a ludicrous characterization of an obvious point: experience does not guarantee success, but can you have success without experience? What is your experience in the field of public speaking and policy analysis? As someone who has been involved with high school policy debate and still is involved with college parliamentary debate, I often feel there is a depth to issues that most ordinary people don't understand, a depth that usually comes through a careful, two-sided analysis of issues that is, more often than not, unique to some kind of analytical, political activity. Please provide evidence (or at least convince me) that you have this depth.

    Cordially,
    Samuel Chang
  • by cheezedawg ( 413482 ) on Monday August 11, 2003 @01:27PM (#6667188) Journal
    One thing that is interesting to note here is the fact that the massive state budget gaps come not from poor management, but from reduced consumer spending.

    But they are all related. Consumer spending is down because people are out of work. People are out of work because the economy is bad. The economy is especially bad in California because of the asinine anti-business legislation that is driving businesses [fortune.com] out of the state.

    The message? Sales taxes are a bad idea.

    The message I get is that you shouldn't increase state spending by 30% in three years during a period of unsustainable growth in tax revenue.

    And I happen to think that sales taxes are the most fair methods of taxation because they let the individual choose how much taxes they are going to pay.

    One idea I like is the circulation fee system.

    I hate that idea. Coerced spending- ugh.
  • Re:that means (Score:3, Insightful)

    by kevin lyda ( 4803 ) * on Monday August 11, 2003 @01:42PM (#6667333) Homepage
    right, so if a person has a heart attack the first thing the paramedics should do is check to see if the person is a citizen. if not, they should just be left to die on the street - after all the immediate treatment of such an event would be tens of thousands of dollars.
  • by mschuyler ( 197441 ) on Monday August 11, 2003 @02:03PM (#6667517) Homepage Journal
    Here's what's happened. A long time ago the people of California, in their infinite wisdom, voted in something called "Proposition 13." Otherwise known as the "welcome, neighbor" law. This instantly created huge disparities in property taxes. For people wanting tax relief, it gave it in spades by freezing property taxes. For people moving to the fine state of California, "welcome, neighbor!" Your taxes are based on the price you paid, regardless that your neighbor in an indentical house pays 1/4th as much. (Bear in mind, please, that this fellow's net worth has increased dramatically. Sell your million dollar bungalow these days and move to Washington State waterfront with enough left over to retire.

    It seemed like such a good idea at the time. But social services were cut. Libraries, for example, were decimated and whaddyaknow, the so-calledd "quality of life" began to deteriorate. (But hey! You lifers' property taxes are low, so to hell with your neighbors!)

    So what did the government do? Began to rely on income tax. With the 90's boom the (state) government stayed afloat on dot-commers' riches for a few more years. Then the bust.

    Now the chickens are home to roost. This has nothing to do with Davis. He inherited this mess caused by the voters when Proposition 13 was passed many years ago. But the *Voters* take no responsibility for the mess they created. They voted Prop 13 in; they vote Davis out. Somehow, they see no connection.

    If elected, you will also inherit this mess. What will you do to educate voters to being citizens of the state instead of citizens of their own plot of land? How will you teach voters that word that is so hard to say, Responsibility?

  • by corgicorgi ( 692903 ) <corgi_fun&yahoo,com> on Monday August 11, 2003 @02:07PM (#6667550) Homepage
    The two hottest political topics under public Slashdotters' eyes are the SCO and RIAA lawsuits. What are your views in each of them?

    For the RIAA cases, most politicians would side with RIAA. Afterall, sharing copyright material is an infringement. But how do you view the methods being used to find these music sharers. Are they a threat to privacy rights? In another words, do the ends justify the means? Also, do you feel the fines, $10k+, are to severe for those convicted. Many of those who download and share musics are kids, from teenagers to college students. They seemed to be singled out for something they don't feel is any more illegal than jaywalking. I personally feel that the fine should be no more than $500.

    As for the SCO case, do you support the actions taken by SCO? I suppose there's little a CA governor can do in this case. What are your views on the Open Source Software and GPL. What protection and their limits do you feel they should have?

    I understand these cases are not bound within California, but many of those involved are in the state. How much can you influence these cases if you are elected governor, and what would you do?
  • by kevin lyda ( 4803 ) * on Monday August 11, 2003 @02:18PM (#6667652) Homepage
    why all this abuse at me? you're the one who wants to deny them medical help. you're the one who seems more interested in punishing the illegal immigrant then in punishing the people bringing them into the country and fining people/companies that employ illegal immigrants.

    i find it odd that in california which seeks to legalise drug use, is so keen on beating down on illegal immigrants. well, no, it fits the self-absorbed attitude i see from most california politicians (left and right).

    i'm still curious how a country that hypes free trade around the world seems unwilling to allow the free movement of labour into it.
  • by spamchang ( 302052 ) on Monday August 11, 2003 @02:24PM (#6667701) Journal
    On reading your website's issues page:

    Clean elections--
    Do you honestly believe that money needs to be removed from the elections equation? How will this ensure an efficient solution if no one is allowed to contribute to a candidate s/he endorses, and how will this ensure that majority candidates will not be swamped by the radicals that flood out of the woodwork by a more equitable playing field? How much money would each candidate get out of the public funding pool? What happens if too many candidates run and not enough money is available?

    Justice System--
    While I agree in principle that the death penalty is bad policy, please offer a concrete solution to take care of the the problems that arise with letting more convicted felons into already overcrowded prisons. If I read your website right, you seem to advocate loosening sentences for as-yet-not-elaborated-on cases. Do give something substantial here.

    Budget Woes--
    Please, please, please tell us what you will do to *solve* the budget problems, other than "make courageous decisions."

    Health Care--
    Please elaborate on how Vermont's health care system, which serves a population of 613,090 (probably less than LA's population even), will scale up to serve California's population of 34,501,130.

    Legalization of Marijuana--
    Although I may be in the minority on this issue, do you think that allowing another mind-altering, functionally-impairing substance on the market is a good thing? Is burning paper and plant leaves good for the environment? What about secondhand smoke? What about commercialization of marjiuana, which will inevitably put additives in to make it smoother and more carcinogenic?

    Economic Prosperity--
    Please, once again, tell us what you will do about this, other than "take a page from President Clinton."

    Overall, I think you introduce many ideas which are great but will be extremely costly to California. Given your repeated use of the words "fiscal discipline," I am less convinced that you have a consistent theme running throughout your platform. California cannot afford to partially fund every political candidate, provide universal health care, and achieve fiscal solvency. This does not include the costs of regulating marijuana and investing in clean energy technologies, which will add to the burden. As you would have Arnold do, please clearly elaborate on what policy initiatives you will undertake, how you would fund them, why they will work, and not what things are like.

    Cordially,
    Samuel Chang
  • by Pxtl ( 151020 ) on Monday August 11, 2003 @02:38PM (#6667841) Homepage
    His representative shouldn't need a majority - they should, however, need a plurality. Plurality is the basis for the US electoral system. The idea that a person could be elected without plurality is prepostrous.
  • by _newwave_ ( 265061 ) <slashdot@[ ]lwalker.tv ['pau' in gap]> on Monday August 11, 2003 @02:43PM (#6667887)
    and you favour leaving them bleeding in the streets

    Typical liberal response...use scare tacticts to get your point across. Take a legitimate debate and throw your opponents view to some far out position no one holds.

    No one is or ever will be denied emergency health care in California or any other state. The concern of the rising costs of healthcare and diminishing benefits is ever growing as "managed" healthcare and trial lawyers run amock are an ever increasing burden on the system. It just so happens that locally, here in CA, we have another burden...that of non tax paying illegal immigrants receiving benefits payed for by tax paying citizens. The argument that it's not an issue because you think somehow that we wouldn't have anyone to take out our trash otherwise is one that has and will continue to fall on the deaf ears hard-working tax-paying voting citizens.
  • by djandrock ( 603529 ) on Monday August 11, 2003 @02:50PM (#6667959)
    Texas - pop. 20,851,820 [census.gov]
    Illegals - est. 700,000 [immigration.gov]
    California - pop. 33,871,648 [census.gov]
    Illegals - est. 2,000,000 [immigration.gov]
    Illegal info [immigration.gov] [immigration.gov]

    While I agree that California is in bad shape due to the extensive government regulation of business that you mentioned above, I have to disagree about the illegal immigrants being a significant part of the problem. While Texas does not have quite as high a proportion of immigrants as California, the budget certainly does not have a 40 billion dollar deficit. I can't see how having twice the illegal immigrant population (proportionally) can account for those billions of dollars.
  • by SquadBoy ( 167263 ) on Monday August 11, 2003 @02:51PM (#6667968) Homepage Journal
    "And I happen to think that sales taxes are the most fair methods of taxation because they let the individual choose how much taxes they are going to pay."

    No no they do not. Sales taxes are very unfair and quite regressive. The simple reason is that at lower incomes most people *have* to spend a big chunk of their paychecks on food, clothes, other things that they need and can not really choose not to spend on and as a result they end up paying sales tax on a much larger percentage of their income than a rich person who spends a much lower percantage of their income on things they can not choose to be without. So no sales taxes and a really unfair and bad thing.
  • by PHoliday ( 149543 ) <cheerful.cynic@NospAm.gmail.com> on Monday August 11, 2003 @02:54PM (#6668004) Homepage
    Simply absurd.

    So we're going to recall a governor, which by it's very nature indicates that the electorate feels that something has gone horribly wrong in the Governor's office, then we're going to allow him to exploit the fact that there are so many people running against him to re-take the office he was just fired from? If that's your idea of fair, I'm glad you're not the one making the call here.

    You also seem to be neglecting the fact that in the replacement election, there is no primary -- something that would eliminate probably 150 candidates from the ballot.

    Without a primary, allowing a newly recalled governor back on the ballot is nothing but a tremendous waste of taxpayer's dollars and runs completely contrary to any sort of democratic ideal still held here.
  • Education (Score:2, Insightful)

    by tpengster ( 566422 ) <slash@@@tpengster...com> on Monday August 11, 2003 @02:56PM (#6668028)
    I noticed your web site says little about education issues. What proposals do you have for improving the quality of public schools, and how do you plan on financing these programs? Do you support or oppose affirmative action, and what proposals (if any) do you have for attracting minority students to california universities? What priority does education have on your agenda and what impact will this have on your budget?
  • by lambadomy ( 160559 ) <lambadomy AT diediedie DOT com> on Monday August 11, 2003 @02:57PM (#6668036)
    I think you're on the right track, but the idea that "sales taxes are the most fair methods of taxation" is a little problematic.

    Sales taxes are, by their nature, regressive. The poorer you are, the bigger a burden they are on you - you have to spend a larger percentage of your income, while richer people can save or invest their money and not pay the sales tax (not to mention any other benefits of being richer). Now I know there are plenty of people in here who think that that's just dandy, and since this isn't really on topic,lets just say it really is obviously not a good idea to tax those most who make the least.
  • by geekee ( 591277 ) on Monday August 11, 2003 @03:07PM (#6668145)
    "We deserve better than rich businessmen and career politicians trading money for power and power for money. Successful leadership is founded on trust. The time has come to restore that trust, and work together to repair this government! "

    Your quote implies leigislation is largely bought by businessmen. However, Davis has been accused of being a puppet of labor unions, enacting anti-business legislation that is driving business away from California. Do you intend to continue this trend, and if so, how will this affect the budget as more businesses leave California, reducing tax revenue?
  • by metachimp ( 456723 ) <.tadish.durbin. .at. .gmail.com.> on Monday August 11, 2003 @03:31PM (#6668400) Homepage
    The biggest problem, as I see it, for anyone who may win this recall, is how on earth do you plan to get the state house, which is dominated handily by Democrats, to play ball with you in Sacramento after you defeated their guy in the executive branch?


    This is one thing that most people aren't talking about. It's one thing to offer slogans and platitudes, but when it comes down to business, how are you going to get the Democratic leadership in the state assembly to give you one minute of their time? I see Arnold winning, and then getting *nothing* done, because hey, if I was a Democratic member of the state house, I wouldn't want to work with you or any of the other usurpers. I'd be more than happy to watch you twist in the wind, unable to build any consensus, totally ineffective because what you did was wrong.


    As a life long resident of the Golden State, this whole thing is a travesty. Too bad we didn't recall Pete Wilson, the father of this entire mess, when we had the chance.

  • by tadas ( 34825 ) on Monday August 11, 2003 @03:54PM (#6668618)
    Do you think there should be a CowboyNeal option in the CA Governor's race?

    Dude, this entire election *is* a CowboyNeal option...

  • by EverDense ( 575518 ) on Monday August 11, 2003 @04:32PM (#6669000) Homepage
    How can you call yourself a "Geek", when you're quite clearly a "Hot Babe"?
  • Qualifications? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Fastball ( 91927 ) on Monday August 11, 2003 @04:37PM (#6669061) Journal
    Why does running Linux, wearing ThinkGeek gear, and anything else computer related qualify you for governor of California or any other political office?

    <PERSONAL OPINION>
    Like William F. Buckley, I'd rather be ruled or governed by the Everyman than I would by an increasing number of deep pocketed haves. That said, I'm not giving anybody a free pass, because they play the part of the geek or legit geeks. I want candidates to put forward a comprehensive platform. Programs they will execute. Priorities for their budgets. Don't placate me by "feeling my pain" or reciting the terms of the GPL.
    <SUBOPINION ON CALIFORNIA>
    If the marijuana legalization and gay marriage are the acid tests for your gubernatorial candidates, then you have a serious problem. These are journalistic issues, issues that sell papers and give the cable news talking heads something to babble about. In reality, these issues (in addition to file sharing, the RIAA, and IP infringement) affect minor assortments of people. They do not belong in the realm of public policy making where budget crises, transportation gridlock, and energy shortages will determine California's future. These affect homosexuals and heterosexuals, virgin lungs and potheads, and Windows neophytes and Linux zealots with no prejudice.
    </SUBOPINION ON CALIFORNIA>
    </POLITICAL OPINION>
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 11, 2003 @06:00PM (#6669921)
    "Think about it, why do we tax the rich? Is it about punishing them for being rich, or trying to get whatever out of them they're willing to pay? Because if it's the ladder, California should really reexamine their tax system."

    As opposed to the "charge what the market will bear" pricing policies that made the rich, rich.

    Yeah! Real fair.
  • by garyrich ( 30652 ) on Monday August 11, 2003 @06:17PM (#6670100) Homepage Journal
    The 1st 200 or so posts on this are various whines about Davis or the Recall process. Computer people should at least understand that the rules is the rules. Complaining about the "fairness" of the process makes as much sense at this point as complaining about the "fairness" of using using { and } as 'begin' and 'end' placeholders in C. The rules are laid out, now the game is to win.

    Given that - what game are you trying to win? You know you aren't going to be elected Governor. Are you just hoping to get your issues addressed? Looking for a book deal? Did someone double dog dare you? Do you, perhaps, actually want to run for Governor 15 years years from now and are just laying a little very early groundwork? Do you just have an excess of zeal?

    I can understand why most of the runners are in it. for the has been actors and such - $3500 is a chump change investment for the amoun of PR they generated. Some (Arianna) are obviously looking at writing a book. Arnold thinks he can actually win. Flynt probably sees it as paying $3500 to fart loudly and publicly at The Establisment.

    Whay are you in this race?
  • not complicated (Score:3, Insightful)

    by GunFodder ( 208805 ) on Monday August 11, 2003 @07:18PM (#6670685)
    The best reasons to tax the rich are that they can afford it and they receive the most benefit from government services.

    The first item doesn't sound fair but it is a basic tenet of capitalism - what the market will bear. If I make $100,000 a year and spend 40% of that on taxes I am still gonna have a lot more money than someone who makes $40000 a year and only spends 20% on taxes.

    Many people will claim that poor people cost more to society than rich people, but this is untrue. Poor people may incur more direct costs, like welfare, subsidized housing, medicare, etc. But this is just enough money to survive. Rich people need the services of the police to protect their numerous belongings. They need the fire department to keep their large homes and office buildings from burning down. They need a military to protect their foreign investments. They need special legislation to protect their business interests. They need bailouts after stealing from their own companies. The government provides these services, and they cost a lot.
  • by fermion ( 181285 ) on Tuesday August 12, 2003 @11:08AM (#6675487) Homepage Journal
    It is bad form to reply to your own comments, and there is a lot of truth to the statement that the crisis was more that just some unethical energy companies. However, just to justify my statement since so many people think they are false

    Enron trader pleads guilty to rig california energy prices [usatoday.com]

    Another trader pleads guilty. [forbes.com]

    Fastow indicted in defrauding California PERS [usdoj.gov]

    The Texas PUC recommends that Enron pay $7 million for manipulating power prices in Texas [chron.com]
    Texas has an obscene overcapacity of power, and obscenely low prices.

    As I said, there is truth in that California does not have enough capacity, but that does not mean they were not hoodwinked. I think it is kind of like ordering a penis pump that never is received. The mark is just too embarrassed to admit the crime took place

  • Legalize It? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Djanossy II ( 696212 ) on Tuesday August 12, 2003 @02:26PM (#6677798)
    I see you are pro-legalization when it comes to marijuana. While I agree that this step would eliminate a seedy underground (pun intended), what very real impact do you think it would have on the economy of California? True, if it were available at the drug store, young college kids wouldn't have to be exposed to a subcultural underground bent on toppling Western Civilization to get their pot. Of all the states, Arizona, Nevada, and California seem most ripe for such a change. However, consider the hit to their economies - all of a sudden you have many, many underground drug dealers out of work. If they're not out of work, their supply chain has definitely been mangled. Where will they turn when the recession hits? Will they try to push other drugs? Shouldn't we just legalize them all? Also, what of the enforcement officials, DEA and the like, who not only have salaries but also buy technology in droves to help track down the big-time dealers? Where will these people be re-inserted into your economic vision? There is a very real, if not shaky, and illegal, economy that supports the weed habit of California these days. There is also an economy that fights it. Where or what do you see these economies dissapating into if you are successful with your "common sense" legalization of marijuana? And, how is your personal consumption of marijuana? Was the thong an idea conceived of under or not under the influence?

A list is only as strong as its weakest link. -- Don Knuth

Working...