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


Forgot your password?
United States News

Georgy Tells Why She Should Be California Gov 1346

Candidates Arnold Shwarzenegger and Larry Flynt surely haven't been asked the vital "Vi or Emacs?" question, and would probably give you a blank stare in reply if it came up. That's why Slashdot sent your questions to candidate Georgy Russell, not them. Georgy has opinions on important matters like coding tools, SCO, and MP3 downloading, not just humdrum stuff like the economy -- although she's not afraid to tackle that issue head-on, too.

1) Do you think the recall is fair? - by mjmalone

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?


The aspect of this recall that I find most disgustingly unfair is the influence of money in politics. Californians should find it frightening that a wealthy Republican can buy himself another election. And if that isn't enough, we end up with an election where a series of other millionaires are taken seriously when they tell us they will govern for "the people." Perhaps worse than individuals being legitimized as candidates solely because of wealth, is a political system so heavily influenced by campaign contributions that lawmakers can no longer use their own judgment. This is at all levels of the Government, with the White House/Enron shenanigans being the perfect example. We also see it with Davis and Bustamante - who are owned by Prison Guard's Union and Indian Gaming. And if we look at less publicized issues, for example the high cost of Worker's Compensation, lobbying efforts and campaign contributions are to blame for the lack of response on behalf of the Legislature.

Requiring 50% to keep Davis seems unfair, when a replacement candidate could be elected with only 15%. However, the replacement candidate election could be fairer with instant runoff voting. Unfortunately people don't understand, and therefore don't trust, the instant runoff voting algorithm. If IRV were used, voters could be sure that the candidate *most* people wanted to win would win. It's a system where Ralph Nader could have maximized his vote without being a spoiler candidate in the 2000 election. (I encourage people to find out more about IRV at www.fairvote.org)

As for my candidacy, I am running in this election because Californians deserve a candidate who is willing to speak candidly to them about issues, such as the budget, the economy, and the death penalty, that other politicians only dance around. We need someone to show courage and take risks to promote change. This recall provides a unique opportunity for an "honest and virtuous" candidate to enter the race, and I challenge people to lend their support and make the first step in taking back the political process.

2) questions about the campaign - by garcia

I would like to know if you fear that two of your more controversial issues (legalization of marijuana and gay marriages) will be detrimental to your campaign? While I believe that as more and more "young" people run for and are elected to office, these items might come to pass, don't you think that it is a little early to be attempting to make these strides?


The controversial issues define this campaign. Realize that these issues are in large part controversial because they're avoided like the plague by mainstream politicians. Lacking the courage to convince people of their true beliefs, poll-abiding politicians choose the easy road. There is anecdotal evidence many politicians believe in gay marriage and ending death penalty, but are too cowardly to fight for those views. Bill Clinton came out after his presidency and so much as said he thought marijuana shouldn't be illegal! Good thing for us he found his spine a year after leaving office.

I don't see these as wacky issues. I've laid out my arguments for why death penalty is bad policy (it's costly, unfairly applied, and imperfect). I've explained why gay marriage is superior to civil union (marriage promotes fidelity and family values, and it removes unfair tax advantages for people willing to file a couple forms ). As for legalized marijuana, why is marijuana criminal when alcohol and cigarettes profit the government? I believe that when people are presented with intelligent and logical arguments, they will turn around. The problem is few politicians take the time to have intelligent discussions on these issues. Education on "controversial" issues is necessary to convince the electorate to make up or change its mind. I truly believe all of these issues will be passed someday. Politicians are wasting our time and money not passing them now.

3) Content vs. Tech - by stylee

California is considered the capitol of the content industry (RIAA, MPAA) and the technology industry (Silicon Valley). These two industries are at odds with each other over intellectual propery rights issues. They are probably also a large chunk of California's huge economy. Do you think you can balance the needs/wants of both lobbying groups in a manner that will be beneficial to both industries? If so how? I realize that this is mostly a federal matter as far as the law and politics go but there are many that believe that California kind of sets the standard for the rest of the nation to follow(at least economically and politically) so I am intersted in your ideas on this matter.


This is a federal issue; however I think that the RIAA in its aggressive pursuit of young mp3 down loaders demonstrates its lack of creativity. Can't they find a new way to make a buck? Besides which, concert prices are typically $40 or more! I haven't seen the numbers on this, but digitized music and video have certainly fueled sales of technology used in association with them. Additionally, kids and adults understand technology better as a result of digital music boom.

The RIAA, with the support of the government, should have approached the situation proactively long ago, and embraced digital music. They should still do this. If they can provide a reasonably priced, easily accessible digital music alternative, I think people will go for it. Right now however, it's cumbersome for the under 18 crowd especially, to buy stuff online, and they haven't worked out all the kinks surrounding the "rules" (e.g. burnable tracks, how long you can keep them, etc) of proprietary downloads.

I believe the role of the government should be to encourage technology companies and the RIAA to work together on the issue, as well as taking a look at it in terms of intellectual property rights of the artists. To me it seems that the RIAA is mostly concerned with their $$$ and not the rights (or $$$) of the musicians. Again, politics is hit with same problem - special/self interest ruling the legislature. And, with the looks of this ballot, anyone who wants to prevent prosecution of down loaders might want to think twice about voting for Arnie.

4) Hope to win or shake things up? - by Dark Paladin

With the names of such heavyweights as Arnold and lightweights like Gary Coleman (no pun intended - well, all right, it was), do you honestly hope to win, or are you making a Ralph Nader like point in forcing certain issues and ideas into the public's eye?


I hope to both win AND shake things up. Obviously the odds are long (Vegas has them at 100 to 1 - bodog.com/sports-betting ), but they are not out of reach. We've only reached a small percentage of voters and already received an impressive amount of support. Howard Dean was considered a long shot just a few months ago, now he's a front runner. To think a Georgy for Governor victory is impossible is to succumb to the jaded view that money is the only victor, and in effect solidify its reality.

5) Technology - by chrisgeleven

Why does your blog and web site, from what I can tell, not mention any uses of technology that you would like to see? Can you describe any protential plans to use technology to reduce costs or provide more benefits for the same price?


Check back soon. Technology is key to improving the efficiency of government, and though the government has come a long way (you can file electronically for some things on the Secretary of State's website) there is still more that can be done. As for problem solving, I like to speak in specifics rather than generalities, so it takes a while.

I am currently looking into the role of visas in technology companies and its effects on California's labor market, and investigating how we can encourage more wide spread use of open source software (both in education and businesses). I'm also trying to get some volunteers to develop apps that will aid in the voting process (check the website for updates or email if you're interested in helping).

6) the most important question - by Mothra the III

Boxers or briefs?


Boxer-briefs! But seriously, boxers, and Georgy for Gov boxers at that!

6A) Re:the most important question - by markhb

vi or emacs?


I'm so glad you asked!! Both. vi for quick editing, emacs (NOT xemacs) for coding projects. :q!:q!:q!

7) Do you think this election is Real? - by Voltas

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?


This election does seem like it was dreamt up by Hollywood reality TV executives, but it is a real election, and it will go down as one of the most, if not the most, historical elections. After October 7, the fun will be over, and I'm sure the media will be bored by the daily details of Sacramento bureaucracy. The only thing that will cripple anyone who wins is his/her inability to lead. A candidate like Gary Coleman, who said he didn't want to be Governor, won't win (I hope). The interesting thing about Coleman, though, is that he was actually a president on Buck Rogers! Perhaps this is a case of the line between reality and fantasy blurring. "Hieronymous Fox, an 11-year-old child genius from the 20th Century is kidnapped for ransom by the sinister Roderick Zale. The boy is the President of the planet Genesia and his bodyguard fears that he will be killed because they cannot meet the ransom demand. Buck, Wilma, and the bodyguard then make separate attempts to rescue the boy." Maybe things will pick back up for the media in 2006, when Arnold Drummond can take another shot at it, and Willis can run as Lt. Governor.

8) Did you pay SCO? - by sharkey

Did you pay for your Linux licenses?

8A) Re: Did you pay SCO? - by El_Ge_Ex

If not, would you support strategic military action against Utah?


Despite the fact that SCO has launched an attack on many Californians, I don't think California will be declaring war on Utah, let alone the cowards at SCO. I'm not sure if my company plans to pay SCO, but I certainly hope they won't. SCO seems like they're running scared, using a lawsuit to boost revenue (kind of like the RIAA). Asking for $700 per license is extremely high, and should send a warning single to people that they are doing this to boost revenue and not simply out of fairness. If you check SCO's insider trading, people are selling like crazy. I think the open source community needs to educate people about the SCO case, and keep SCO's scare tactics from bullying weary individuals or corporations into paying them.

9) Who's in your staff? - by zoneball

A good leader must surround him or herself 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?


My "staff" is all volunteers. Their experience varies from none to work with local and state campaigns. I also have a professional photographer helping me, and a few people working on the technical side of things - website and video editing.

As for my administration, I plan to bring in people who have first hand experience with the problems on which they'll be working, and I would like to see diversity, in terms of both professional background and demographics (ethnicity, age, sex, etc.).

10) Do you understand... - by niko9

Do you understand Dselect? That program scares the poop out me. But I figure if you can handle dselect, you can handle being governor.


I have not used dselect. Hopefully you can find another litmus test for me!

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Georgy Tells Why She Should Be California Gov

Comments Filter:
  • Emacs (Score:5, Funny)

    by JohnGrahamCumming ( 684871 ) * <slashdot@jg[ ]rg ['c.o' in gap]> on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @12:33PM (#6745265) Homepage Journal
    Given the Terminator's capabilities it/he is clearly a derivative of Emacs, not Vi. Arnold would not give you a blank stay he'd simply delete your buffer with a quick C-x k you (that's Emacs-speak for "Hasta La Vista, Baby").

  • by Limburgher ( 523006 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @12:33PM (#6745268) Homepage Journal
    How about because she's smarter and cuter than Arnold? I mean, priorities, people. :

    Seriously, she's got my vote, for what it's worth.

    Of course, I live in Chicago. . .

  • Damn! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Surak ( 18578 ) * <surak@mail[ ]cks.com ['blo' in gap]> on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @12:33PM (#6745270) Homepage Journal
  • by LinuxParanoid ( 64467 ) * on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @12:35PM (#6745296) Homepage Journal

    Those were the 10 questions?

    Sheesh, how about "How would you cut California's $35 billion budget deficit?" (i.e. spending cuts or tax increases or both, and in which areas?)


    P.S. For the curious, dselect is the Debian package manager, documented here [debian.org].
      • Paraphrase: The deficit is bad. Tax the rich.

        According to Georgy, taxing the rich will magically make the economy boom, and therefore end the budget deficit.

        Now, taxing the upper brackets may be an important step to ending the budget woes, but that is apparently her entire economic plan.

        I'm glad she thought this one out.
    • by garcia ( 6573 ) * on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @12:44PM (#6745388)
      you could look at the State of MN (where I currently reside)... They had an $8 billion deficit after good 'ol Jesse left (he was done when I got here).

      The new governor is refusing (at this time) to raise taxes. Instead he is cutting funding all over the place. Higher education got the first hit (where I happen to work).

      They want to limit benefits, end pay raises (in fact they want to give us two pay decreases), end new positions, drop funding for students, etc.

      So instead of taxing everyone outright, they tax us in another way? What's the difference in the long run?
      • by monkeydo ( 173558 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @12:58PM (#6745594) Homepage
        Are you serious? You would rather they raise taxes and take more of your money just so they can give it back to you in the form of better benefits? You should realize that bureacracies always give you back less than what you put in, so you'd be better off keeping the money you would have paid in higher taxes. Or were you hoping that the state would raise everyone ELSE's taxes so that you could get a raise? The difference in the long run is that you might loose your job, but the rest of the residents of NM won't be titheing to the state to support you.
    • CA Budget Deficit (Score:3, Insightful)

      by billstewart ( 78916 )
      The real question is "How did CA *get* a $35B budget deficit?" The answer was basically that back during the dotcom boom, everybody's personal income was expanding by X% a year and corporate income by Y% a year, and if you believed everybody's business plans ("Enhancing Shareholder Value and Becoming Mozillionaires!"), CA's tax revenue would increase by the astounding rate of Z% a year, giving the State a humongous surplus so the politicians were busy arguing about how to spend it all before it got away.
  • by FurryFeet ( 562847 ) <joudanx@@@yahoo...com> on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @12:35PM (#6745297)
    I don't know about you all, but I don't hear a geek. I hear a politician telling geeks what they want to hear.
    That's not a slam, just an opinion. On the other hand, Georgy would sure be a lot easier on the eyes than Arnold or Bustamante.
    However, it's a moot point. Running as the "geek" candidate was silly anyway, like running as the "paraplejics" candidate, or the "millionaires" candidate. In a general election, any candidate aiming for a minority is going to lose.
  • wasting time? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by garcia ( 6573 ) * on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @12:36PM (#6745303)
    As for legalized marijuana, why is marijuana criminal when alcohol and cigarettes profit the government? I believe that when people are presented with intelligent and logical arguments, they will turn around. The problem is few politicians take the time to have intelligent discussions on these issues. Education on "controversial" issues is necessary to convince the electorate to make up or change its mind. I truly believe all of these issues will be passed someday. Politicians are wasting our time and money not passing them now.

    While I see where you are coming from, I highly doubt that the legalization of marijuana is a necessary topic when there are many other topics which should be discussed.

    Marijuana, my opinion on the subject is irrelevant, is not a priority in this country. It's still considered a drug, its prohibition "worked" and didn't cause a massive revolt like alcohol's did, and it's not terribly important (medical use is another thread totally).

    You haven't really answered my question though. Of course the mainstream politicians avoid them like the plague, they know that they are possibly detrimental to their campgains. Why don't you think that they will be detrimental to yours?
    • Re:wasting time? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by stratjakt ( 596332 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @12:43PM (#6745378) Journal
      It's still considered a drug, its prohibition "worked" and didn't cause a massive revolt like alcohol's did

      Thats because drunks are irrational and prone to fits of extreme emotion, and potheads are mellow and apathetic.

      Many (including myself) consider it a huge issue, not just the legal status of marijuana, but the sweeping powers given to the DEA and the whole concept of civil forfeiture. It's ruined a LOT of innocent lives over very trivial offenses.

      The DEA can show up at your home, give your wife this choice "either you testify in court that your husband is a drug dealer, or we'll sieze your home and put your children with foster families". They have those powers regardless of any burden of evidence. Those powers have been abused countless times as law enforcement agencies started to see civil forfeiture as a means of funding.

      Possession of any amount of marijuana (even hemp with no narcotic effects) in Nevada, for instance, results in a manditory 25 year jail term - FOR FIRST OFFENSES! There's something seriously wrong with that. Your life is over because some prick cop notices you're wearing a hemp necklace.
      • Re:wasting time? (Score:5, Informative)

        by Martin Blank ( 154261 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @01:36PM (#6746064) Homepage Journal
        Possession of any amount of marijuana (even hemp with no narcotic effects) in Nevada, for instance, results in a manditory 25 year jail term - FOR FIRST OFFENSES!

        Incorrect, as I read the law.

        NRS 453.096 "Marijuana" defined.
        1. "Marijuana" means:
        (a) All parts of any plant of the genus Cannabis, whether growing or not;
        (b) The seeds thereof;
        (c) The resin extracted from any part of the plant; and
        (d) Every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture or preparation of the plant, its seeds or resin.
        2. "Marijuana" does not include the mature stems of the plant, fiber produced from the stems, oil or cake made from the seeds of the plant, any other compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture or preparation of the mature stems (except the resin extracted therefrom), fiber, oil or cake, or the sterilized seed of the plant which is incapable of germination.

        This sounds to me as though hemp-fiber necklaces are perfectly legal, as they are not "marijuana" in the eyes of the law.

        NRS 453.3363 Suspension of proceedings and probation of accused under certain conditions; effect of discharge and dismissal.
        1. If a person who has not previously been convicted of any offense pursuant to NRS 453.011 to 453.552, inclusive, or pursuant to any statute of the United States or of any state relating to narcotic drugs, marijuana, or stimulant, depressant or hallucinogenic substances tenders a plea of guilty, guilty but mentally ill, nolo contendere or similar plea to a charge pursuant to subsection 2 or 3 of NRS 453.336, NRS 453.411 or 454.351, or is found guilty of one of those charges, the court, without entering a judgment of conviction and with the consent of the accused, may suspend further proceedings and place him on probation upon terms and conditions that must include attendance and successful completion of an educational program or, in the case of a person dependent upon drugs, of a program of treatment and rehabilitation pursuant to NRS 453.580.

        The judge has the option of sentencing a first offender to probation and treatment.

        NRS 453.336 Unlawful possession not for purpose of sale: Prohibition; penalties.
        1. A person shall not knowingly or intentionally possess a controlled substance, unless the substance was obtained directly from, or pursuant to, a prescription or order of a physician, osteopathic physician's assistant, physician assistant, dentist, podiatric physician, optometrist, advanced practitioner of nursing or veterinarian while acting in the course of his professional practice, or except as otherwise authorized by the provisions of NRS 453.005 to 453.552, inclusive.
        2. Except as otherwise provided in subsections 3 and 4 and in NRS 453.3363, and unless a greater penalty is provided in NRS 212.160, 453.3385, 453.339 or 453.3395, a person who violates this section shall be punished:
        (a) For the first or second offense, if the controlled substance is listed in schedule I, II, III or IV, for a category E felony as provided in NRS 193.130.

        NRS 193.130 Categories and punishment of felonies.
        (e) A category E felony is a felony for which a court shall sentence a convicted person to imprisonment in the state prison for a minimum term of not less than 1 year and a maximum term of not more than 4 years. Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (b) of subsection 1 of NRS 176A.100, upon sentencing a person who is found guilty of a category E felony, the court shall suspend the execution of the sentence and grant probation to the person upon such conditions as the court deems appropriate. Such conditions of probation may include, but are not limited to, requiring the person to serve a term of confinement of not more than 1 year in the county jail. In addition to any other penalty, the court may impose a fine of not more than $5,000, unless a greater penalty is authorized or required by statute.

        If the court deci
    • Re:wasting time? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by BobRooney ( 602821 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @12:54PM (#6745524) Homepage
      Relevant because:

      To help remediate some of the financial woes of california, additional "sin" taxes could add up to huge sums of money for the state to funnel into education, law enforcement, business incentives etc.

      Scientifically speaking Marijuana is no more, and likely less addictive than other LEGAL regulated substances. (i.e. tobacco, alcohol, caffiene). That said, it is unlikely that government regulated, legal marijuana would spawn an outbreak of drug addiction, which is the unexpressed fear of some who oppose legalization.

      Now, on to the $$. If a pack of 20 marijuana cigarettes cost, say 20 dollars its likely they would sell like hotcakes. If the government were to regulate their production and sale, including hefty taxes, there is ample room for tremendous profit for the manufacturers, wholesalers, distributers etc. as well as HUGE tax revenue.

      Additionally law enforcement would save tons of money becuase no more marijuana related crime (i.e. sale/possesion) would have to be dealt with.

      So, lots of extra tax $$$, more law enforcement resources and a stoned and happy populace makes some sense.
    • Re:wasting time? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by caino59 ( 313096 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @12:59PM (#6745599) Homepage
      Marijuana, my opinion on the subject is irrelevant, is not a priority in this country. It's still considered a drug, its prohibition "worked" and didn't cause a massive revolt like alcohol's did, and it's not terribly important (medical use is another thread totally).

      Prohibition worked? hardly...just like the bootleggers of old, there are many people trafficking and using marijuana. And to say it's not an important subject could definately be debated, with the amount of research done on marijuana's effects and uses each year. Alcohol is not terribly important either. Arguably, alcohol poses more problems (health and socially) than marijuana. Alcohol IS addictive. Sure, consumption of alcohol and smoking marijuana both cause cancer. So simply either extract THC, or make butter, brownies, teas, etc. No shown danger of cancer there.

      So just because marijuana is a drug, that means it should be illegal? Alcohol is a drug, as is nicotine (which is more addictive than heroine i might add)

      Marijuana legalization IS a big topic these days. The government is also missing out on a lot of money here, and I'm surprised it hasn't been legalized for that reason alone.

      Another thing, with the state of farming in America as it is, that would be an easily grown crop that could help rejuvenate that industry. It can be grown in anywhere in the U.S., although Northern states would have a shorter growing season.

      Okay, I'm off my soapbox now....

      BTW, I have not used marijuana for about 2 years now.
    • Eh? Do *you* know anybody who seriously thinks marijuana prohibition is a good idea and not a total crock that's ineffective at keeping teenagers from smoking, highly effective at funding criminals and gangs, and a waste of time for policemen and jailers who could be locking up *real* criminals?

      For some people it's a priority issue, for others it's not. My father died of cancer in a state which doesn't have medical marijuana, and it might have helped his last couple weeks of life. The reason it's not av

  • by yebb ( 142883 ) * on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @12:36PM (#6745304)
    vi or emacs?


    I'm so glad you asked!! Both. vi for quick editing, emacs (NOT xemacs) for coding projects. :q!:q!:q!

    A very politically savey response, given the audience.

  • by terraformer ( 617565 ) <tpb@pervici.com> on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @12:37PM (#6745309) Journal
    6) the most important question - by Mothra the III
    Boxers or briefs?
    Boxer-briefs! But seriously, boxers, and Georgy for Gov boxers at that!

    Everyone seems to forget the third option...

  • by Speare ( 84249 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @12:51PM (#6745477) Homepage Journal
    Yeah, I missed the original questioning round, but I think the slashdork crowd missed some serious chances to highlight a serious candidate.

    California may be famous for its cities, but it's the agribusiness which shapes much of the policy and possibilities. How much do you know about the seasonal migrant industry? How much do you know about toxic waste from dense livestock management? How much do you know about fair water rights and the unfair political agendas of the affected populations?

  • Two Things. (Score:3, Informative)

    by spirality ( 188417 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @12:54PM (#6745527) Homepage

    Concorcet's [electionmethods.org] method is much better than Instant run off.

    And her preference for editing is the same as mine... exactly. :)

  • Grit in Craw... (Score:5, Informative)

    by On Lawn ( 1073 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @12:58PM (#6745583) Journal
    I like her spunk, and her charge that politicians need a shake up. But I don't think she's correct on one particular statement...

    Californians should find it frightening that a wealthy Republican can buy himself another election.

    This has a few problems.

    1) Who is buying themselves another election? I know of no money donations that came from a ex-gubenatorial candidate. Not Simon, or Riordan (who else would know who she might be talking about?). Most of the money was fronted by Darryl Issa, who not only didn't run previously, but is not running now (although he did fill out the papers to run).

    2) How is this a purchased election? The money was not given to public officials as a bribe to make another election. It was not given to voters to sign petitions. It was given to only some of the people who watched people sign petitions. They were offered $1 a signature, and its noted that the counter petitions started by Davis put a bounty of $3-5 dollars a signature.

    It just seems rather disenginious to call this election "purchased" in any way shape or form. Probably becuase it margionalises how much even Democrats hate Davis.
  • by arcanumas ( 646807 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @01:00PM (#6745612) Homepage
    Hmm disturbing....
    Even though she is a Slashdoter , there is no Cowboy Neal option in the poll at her website

    I wonder why...

  • by Nept ( 21497 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @01:09PM (#6745718) Journal
    Californians should find it frightening that a wealthy Republican can buy himself another election.

    As opposed to a wealthy Democrat [gray-davis.com] who bought himself the last election?

  • by ShatteredDream ( 636520 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @01:09PM (#6745720) Homepage
    The problem with Grey Davis seems to be that he is one step away from being a clone of Clinton, the only missing part being Clinton's ability to smooth style. Clinton knew how to work people who disagreed with him and didn't like him so that he could at least seem decent on the surface. Davis just seems to be a total asshole and he even looks like one in most of the pictures I've seen. He just radiates hostility, arrogance and all of the other negative traits that most politicians don't want to cultivate.

    I think Arnold may make the best candidate because he's a businessman, has been extraordinarily successful compared to most people who go into business and he's got the appearance of a genuine and warm personality that makes him look much more like a straight shooter. He's closer to the center than most, and as Reason Online's writers have pointed out [reason.com], he's got many good points going for him.

    I am a Southerner, and for lack of a better political label I am closer to a libertarian socialist than a libertarian capitalist on most issues. These are what I think are wrong with Georgy's positions.

    • The Death Penalty is Evil and Expensive(tm). Right, and locking someone in a cage for the rest of their life like a circus animal or zoo exhibit is more humane? I'd much rather get executed than imprisoned for life. Life imprisonment, not execution, is cruel and unusual.
    • Tax increases are needed. No, what you need is a tax system that is very easy to force near 100% accountability on. It is easier to predict the future through tarot cards and reading tea leaves than calculate what the rich and middle class owe in a modern income tax system. Get rid of the income tax and raise excise taxes. Introduce a flat corporate income tax of say.... 2.5% for businesses based in CA and 5% for those that just do a lot of business there.
    • Protect the social programs. How about you stop competing with private charities? The people who work for them are more dedicated because most of them are doing the same work as government bureacrats, but for free or little compensation. Americans already give around $300B a year in charitable donations. Imagine what that would be if there was no income tax and welfare state.
    • Universal Healthcare is necessary. No it isn't. If you are going to do a socialized medicare system, the better way to do it rather pay for everybody's healthcare is to evaluate every citizen's income and give it only to those whose income couldn't buy private insurance. Many in the lower class could afford insurance, if they stopped buying luxury items like controlled substances, IP, cable tv and internet access. It's a matter of priority.
    • Gays should be allowed to marry. I agree in principle, but not on the basis of "equality." Marriage should be a title like Mr. or Mrs. in the eyes of the state, not a special license. I don't think that letting two men or women raise a heterosexual child is going to be very bad, it's not entirely desirable, but I do think that if we open the door to "alternatives" like polygamy then we are in danger. The only logistical problem I see with "damage to the family" from gay marriage is that kids are probably better off with parents of both genders. For example, girls need a mother to show them how to be a woman by example and a good father figure to show them what to look for in and expect from a man. Most of the girls I've know that fit that description date decent guys, the ones that don't date men that are at best described eventually once they get to know them as tee-total assholes.
    • Legalize Marijuana. Why stop there? The best way to help minorities is to take away the easy cash that comes from being able to sell illegal drugs. Legal drugs are cheaper, safer and very difficult for criminals to take advantage of for huge profit. Oh and did I mention it's good for national security?

    Just a little critique from an outsider.

    • The Death Penalty is Evil and Expensive(tm). Right, and locking someone in a cage for the rest of their life like a circus animal or zoo exhibit is more humane? I'd much rather get executed than imprisoned for life. Life imprisonment, not execution, is cruel and unusual.

      So if you're ever sentenced to life in prison kill yourself. If you don't want to be cruel, make it optional and let the person decide. The number of false convictions being overturned by DNA evidence is appaling. Even more appaling is the

  • by Etyenne ( 4915 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @01:12PM (#6745748)
    My question was not mooded up enough to be sent to Georgy, but I wuold love to know :

    Where does she get the money for this camplaign ? Personnal saving ? Friends and parents ? Others ?
  • Naivete (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Hentai ( 165906 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @01:14PM (#6745780) Homepage Journal
    I believe that when people are presented with intelligent and logical arguments, they will turn around.

    Someone's lived in Northern California too long.

    Unfortunately, "intelligent and logical" arguments don't sell, or we'd never be in this mess in the first place.

    Good luck, though. I'm completely behind you anyways.
  • by sab39 ( 10510 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @01:21PM (#6745864) Homepage
    She'd lose my vote, if I were Californian. Not because of her naivete: I'd rather have a naive governor than one that's experienced in, and jaded by, the current political system. People who don't realize that what they're trying to do is impossible are far more likely to succeed than those who know it is.

    But she'd lose my vote on one issue: I refuse to support anyone who supports IRV. Our current electoral system is bad enough: why oh why does every electoral-reformist have to support one of the few systems that's actually provably WORSE?

    My personal preference for government elections is the Approval system, which eliminates the vast majority of the problems with Plurality without introducing worse ones, like a complicated ballot sheet (remember, a significant percentage of Floridians couldn't handle the ones we have now!) and violations of monotonicity.

    I'm aware of the technical superiority of Concordet methods, and support them for elections in which all voters are highly educated, but the complexity of the ballot sheets should rule it out along with IRV for elections to public office, IMO.
  • by Rogerborg ( 306625 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @01:24PM (#6745899) Homepage
    On access violations. I'd overflow her buffer any day.
  • by spamchang ( 302052 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @01:29PM (#6745967) Journal
    she doesn't adequately explain how she can not believe in the legitimacy of a recall and still run in that recall race. i presume if she says that california deserves a good governor, then she, in some part, believes that the recall is legitimate enough to elect a legitimate governor.

    i don't think gay marriages and legalizing marijuana should define the campaign, as she said. i think the controversial issues, the reasons for the recall itself, are the economy of california, the inability of the state to get anything done, and gray davis' inability to work with the legislature. those are the reasons why a recall is needed; THOSE SHOULD DEFINE ALL THE RECALL CANDIDATES' CAMPAIGNS. the recall is about saving california, not a litmus test for social issues.

    and if her staff is all volunteers, heaven help her (if she believes in such) because the big names in political maneuvering will go to the people who are willing to solidly define themselves on issues, and it doesn't seem like she'll get much help. (unless she drafts me? ah but the odds are against me; net interaction between women and me is negative) even then, i'm just a neophyte.

    vi AND emacs? the question was meant for her to choose, not to explain good points of both! well she's learning as a politician how to keep both sides of the aisle happy i guess...=P
  • by Col. Klink (retired) ( 11632 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @01:44PM (#6746170)
    There are 17 voters and 3 choices (call them X, Y and Z).

    The 17 voters are split into 4 factions with the following preferences:
    6 voters prefer X over Y over Z
    2 voters prefer Y over X over Z *
    4 voters prefer Y over Z over X
    5 voters prefer Z over X over Y
    In the first election, everyone votes for their favorite choice:

    X gets 6 votes; Y gets 6 votes; Z gets 5 votes, and is eliminated.

    In the second election, everyone votes for X or Y:

    X gets 11 votes; Y gets 6 votes; X wins!

    Now assume that the 2 voters (*) with preferences (Y,X,Z) had decided that "X" really was the best candidate and change their preferences to (X,Y,Z). All other preferences remain the same:
    6 voters prefer X over Y over Z
    2 voters prefer X over Y over Z *
    4 voters prefer Y over Z over X
    5 voters prefer Z over X over Y
    In the first election, everyone votes for their favorite choice:

    X gets 8 votes; Y gets 4 votes, and is eliminated; Z gets 5 votes.

    In the second election, everyone votes for X or Z:

    X gets 8 votes; Z gets 9 votes; Z wins!

    The only change between the first and second cases was that X was more preferred by 2 voters. Because of the additional support, X lost.
  • by QuackQuack ( 550293 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @01:53PM (#6746288) Journal
    Georgy: I'm so glad you asked!! Both. vi for quick editing, emacs (NOT xemacs) for coding projects. :q!:q!:q!

    Typical politician... comes out on both sides of important and contraversial issues.

  • by retro128 ( 318602 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @02:20PM (#6746616)
    Yes everyone...Vote with your dick. She's young and cute after all. And she can use BOTH vi and emacs!

    Boxers or briefs? vi or emacs? What kind of questions are those? When I'm paying out of my ass for car registration and funding for higher education is being cut left and right I don't want to hear about these asinine topics. I don't want to see a :q!:q!:q! at the end of a response from someone who could potentially be ruling over me. She's 26. We don't even know if she can balance her checkbook, let alone run an economy worth 100 billion a year. I don't give a crap if she's a geek, I want someone who is capable of running a large business and can make informed decisions across a wide range of topics. NOT someone who's biggest decision of the day is whether to write a program in Perl or Python.
    • by greymond ( 539980 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @02:31PM (#6746720) Homepage Journal
      I fully agree - most of those questions have no bearing on what is important for the next Gov. of CA to do. It may have been better to ask questions dealing with actual CA issues like the deficit, the unemployment rate, gov funded institutes and education, etc... and then maybe throw in a question about vi and emacs as a last question leave on a funny note kinda thing.

      If I was to interview Arnold or Larry Flint I wouldn't ask them about pointers on body building or fondling hot women.
  • It's the economy (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Experiment 626 ( 698257 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @02:27PM (#6746676)
    While Miss Russell raises interesting points (especially about technology, and about voting systems that eliminate spoiler effects), I think her economic policies are clearly a step in the wrong direction.

    First, consider the approach of one of her competitors, Mr. Schwarzenegger (who it should be pointed out, has an economics degree):

    "...bring businesses back to California. We have the most unfriendly business environment right now in California of any state. Businesses are leaving every day. They're expanding outside of the state. That means that people are getting laid off. Jobs are lost."

    Now look at Miss Russell's platform. It is filled with anti-corporate rhetoric like "We deserve better than rich businessmen and career politicians trading money for power and power for money", "end corporate welfare to Bush's energy buddies", and so on. Rather than even trying to get business back to the state, she proposes tax hikes that will further slow an already dismal state economy.

    It's easy to blame all of society's problems on corporations and on the wealthy. I'm not rich either, and it's a natural reaction to be jealous of those better off than oneself. But, in the long run, it's counterproductive. After all, who hires people, makes investments, and gets the economy moving again?

    In a sense, California's economic problems are a foreshadowing or microcosm of what is happening at the national level: because of high costs of living and more business-friendly atmosphere elsewhere, companies are leaving. Whether the jobs are going from California to Iowa or from the U.S. to India, the inability to retain or lure back business causes lost jobs and a weakened economy. Is someone whose economic policies revolve around anti-corporate rhetoric and tax hikes really in a good position to reverse this trend?

  • About Georgy (Score:3, Informative)

    by Kallahar ( 227430 ) <kallahar@quickwired.com> on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @02:27PM (#6746683) Homepage
    About Georgy: http://www.georgyforgov.com/ [georgyforgov.com]

    "Georgy Russell is a Software Engineer who works at VERITAS Software in the Advanced Technology Group. She graduated with honors in Computer Science from the University of California, Berkeley in 1999."

    "As a progressive, Georgy sees fairness as the underlying tenet which should frame decision making in California."
  • by HarveyBirdman ( 627248 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @02:50PM (#6747017) Journal
    Where's the questions on energy policy? Where's the challenges to the FUD on her site? Where's the questions about the economy- you know... the thing that sparked the recall election in the first place? Geez, at least toss in one about the car tax.

    This was a gabfest- a chatroom transcript.

    Californians should find it frightening that a wealthy Republican can buy himself another election.

    Well, some of us, while not Republicans, don't buy into the Big Evil Republican Bogeyman that the opposition trots out every 3 nanoseconds in lieu of actual thought or ideas.

    And Issa dropped out, so what's your point? He could have spent $100 million and not gotten 2 million signatures if the sentiment for a recall did not exist. Some of us find it refreshing to see that voters can still flex a little muscle. See the Constitution Of California, Article II, Sections 13-20. The recall election process is built into the state Constitution as well as the state election codes.There were stringent numbers to be met for the recall effort. The recall has stood firm against several legal and media challenges.

    As for Republicans, the recall is also endorsed by the Libertarians and the American Independents. In fact, many key Republicans have the stance that they should be focusing more on defeating Barbara Boxer or re-electing Bush in the next regular elections.

    Ah, what's the point... She's just another ideologue without any real, workable solutions. Does humanity really have to suck this badly?

  • by JustAnotherReader ( 470464 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @05:25PM (#6748678)
    The most important question wasn't selected, or answered. Here's the only question that matters:

    As a Californian who signed the recall petition I'd like to start by saying that we know why Davis is a bad governor.

    • The Oracle fiasco cost the state millions of dollars.
    • Davis said in his "State of the State" address that if he found that the electric companies were ripping us off by shutting down power stations to artificially raise prices then he'd take over the stations via emminent domain. Sure enough, the electric companies were found to be manipulating the prices. Rather than fullfilling his promise he formed a 5 year plan to buy electricity at a high rate and to pay for it from the general fund thereby bankrupting the state. That plan cost us billions of dollars.
    • On top of all that he increased spending by (depending which source you cite) 30% to 48%. Government spending increased roughly twice the rate of the population increase. And now he tells us the only way we can get out of this mess is to cut police, fire, and school budgets.
    • Because of all this our bonds have been downgraded to one level above "junk".

    So we know why he's a bad governor. What we want to know, what we need to know, is how do you propose to fix this mess? Don't tell me how other people have failed, don't give me some generic line about how "special interest is running this state". Give me specific points of your plan to fix our financial problems.

    She didn't answer the question at all. I mean, come on folks. "Boxers or Briefs"?? Who the hell cares!? This is serious shit! How are you going to keep my vehicle fees, gas taxes, and property taxes from tripling? That's what's important.

    Content of this interview == null

  • by B Ekim ( 472969 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @05:27PM (#6748702)
    any californian slashdotter will vote for Mary Carey [marycareyforgovernor.com]

The shortest distance between two points is under construction. -- Noelie Alito