Ask the 'Geek Candidate' for California Governor

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.

Comments

Do you think the recall is fair?

[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.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[name773]

recall system that relies on honesty and viruous politicians

lol, no wonder why it isn't working

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[AntiOrganic]

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.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[Anonymous Coward]

A lot of those same voters signed the recall petitions.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems plenty fair to me.

For any of the other candidates to get elected, a majority of votes has to approve the recall (> 50%).

The ballot isn't for keeping Davis, its for recalling Davis. If not a single person voted, then Davis would not be recalled.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[mjmalone]

But each vote to not recall Davis is essentially a vote for Davis. Which means if he is recalled with 60% of votes 40% of voters voted for him. If the candidate who then wins only got 25% of votes then how is this justified?

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice how it is always someone else's fault. Seemed like a receipe for disaster to unregulate half of the power distribution process. Like Gray Davis created the $38 billion deficit on purpose, someone should get recalled for that.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[grug0]

Hate the game, not the playa. If the recall system is so easily abused, then all these Democrats should have done something about it before now. Considering it's been around since the 20s, they had all the time in the world.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bill Clinton was elected with like 40% of the popular vote. Was that fair to you?

I really don't see anything wrong with this. You choose wether or not you want to recall Davis, then you choose who you want to replace him if he is recalled.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[Yohahn]

Some things are actually atrributable to others.

Even though some people are whiners and want to blame everthing on others, this dosen't negate the times that somebody/something else is to blame.

I'm always amused that people blame govenors/presidents for things that are frequently more attributable to their legislative bodies.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[mjmalone]

Bill Clinton was elected with like 40% of the popular vote. Was that fair to you?

Care to provide a source for that statement?

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[geekmetal]

This whole situation seems like a gross abuse of a recall system that relies on honesty and virtuous politicians.

If the system relies on honest and virtuous politicians, that should first be recalled by its creators. What were they thinking!

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[Randolpho]

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. :)

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[evilviper]

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's a very simple black & white issue... Being able to hide your major failings until after an election should not give you a free pass.

Grey Davis can put his own name on the ballot, and those people can vote for him if he is who they want as govenor... So it is a cut-and-dry situation.

Would you have any reason to complain if this was a normal election and there were 200 candidates? Obviously, the same rules apply.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[Anonymous Coward]

Doubt me, eh?

Click Here.

do a find for "Bill Clinton 1992" and right next to his name you will see he received 43.2 percent of the popular vote.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[deanj]

The one thing to keep in mind is that all this recall stuff is part of the law, so nothing illegal is going on here.

Not to say it isn't screwy the way they're doing it, because it's being misinterpreted. What should really be happening is two separate ballots, some weeks apart: First one: Do you want Gray Davis recalled. Second (if there is one), ok, who do you want instead.

If Arnold or whoever else gets elected through this process, you can bet there will be an almost instantaneous recall campaign started by the Gray Davis faction.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[El_Ge_Ex]

Do you think the california recall election is fair?

Personally, I think this is the best thing to happen to politics in a long time. In this election voters can vote for the person, not just the party. They feel their vote means more, and that is not just going to 'The lesser of two-evils.'

Everytime I hear someone bitch and moan about Bush and the 2004 election. I tell them: 'Yeah, but are the alternatives any better?'

For the record, I hate political parties period. I'm a Fiscal Conservative, Social Liberal. Both parties have whored themselves to special interests to the point that I don't even pay attention any more.

(Ok, forcing myself to stop the political rant. I'll just write a Journal Entry instead.) :)

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[Randolpho]

I turned this up with a quick google:

http://www.multied.com/elections/1992pop.html (Beware popups) 43.3% according to that.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[vondo]

Grey Davis can put his own name on the ballot, and those people can vote for him if he is who they want as govenor... So it is a cut-and-dry situation.

I suppose someone named Grey Davis could, but Gray Davis, the current governor of California, is not allowed on the ballot. Hence, his Lt. Governor is running as the "keep a Democrat in office" candidate.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[GigsVT]

The way i understand it, he can't.

There is a currently pending lawsuit to allow his name on the ballot. Otherwise, he has to get >50% vote on a seperate issue on the ballot that asks whether he should be recalled.

At least that's how I understand it piecing it together from various NPR reports.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[mjmalone]

And if you look at the statistics the reason for this number is that Perot got 19% of the votes. Clinton still got the majority of votes by more than 5 percentage points. In the scenario I describe Davis would get the majority of votes and would still lose the election.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[paitre]

Actually, Davis -cannot- put his name on this ballot.
He's the focus of the first part of the vote (the recall) he cannot, under any circumstance, be considered as a candidate for governor on the second part.

this particular issue has already been ruled on by the CA SC.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[cheezedawg]

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.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[GigsVT]

I'm a Fiscal Conservative, Social Liberal.

I guess people are afraid of the L word these days?

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[jgalun]

Could you provide some documentation that $30 billion of California's deficit was caused by Enron (or power-company shenanigans)? I've never heard that number, and it seems very high to me.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[paitre]

Seriously.
Too many people seem to either not know that there is a political philosophy called Libertarian or they are in the camp that thinks the LP has usurped it.
Hint: they haven't, although their last pres. candidate was certainly a yawner.

*shrug*

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[derfel]

It's really simple - this is democracy in action. If an elected official does a horrible job, or at least the majority of the electorate thinks so, he can be replaced. He can be on the replacement ballot and if he gets a plurality of the vote, he gets his job back. This is a good thing. It gives us, the people, the chance to pass judgement on those who have been given very key responsibilities that affect our daily lives.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[rjamestaylor]

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.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a Fiscal Conservative, Social Liberal. I guess people are afraid of the L word these days?

Lesbian? What the hell does that have to do with his political viewpoint?

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[Anonymous Coward]

I dont see why its not fair. If you dont want the recall, its a simple two-choice issue. You simply vote 'no' on the recall. A majority is required to recall Davis. The second ballot only comes into play if Davis actually is recalled.

The replacement ballot is like any other election, there are more than two candidates running.

There is nothing unfair about it. If you don't want davis recalled, then vote no on the recall ballot. There is no way that Davis could get a majority of "No" votes and be recalled at the same time.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[El_Ge_Ex]

That is the purpose of offices such as the U.S. Vice President, or, in California's case, the Lt. Governor.

No, If we didn't like the Pres why in the heck would we want his (or her) right-hand person brought in charge? We throw an administration out because it has failed in it's duty. Otherwise it would be like cutting off the head of the hydra only to have it replaced by another.

-B

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[cens0r]

It's unfair because if 51% of the people vote to recall Davis, then the person with the most votes wins. Davis isn't able to be on the ballot. So lets say arnold has the most votes with 30%. That means that 49% voted for Davis, but he looses to arnold. That isn't fair.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[Anonymous Coward]

I was under the impression that Davis smudged the numbers regarding California's deficit until just after his election.

Then when the people found out their state had a huge deficit and that they were lied to, the joined in the recall effort.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[El_Ge_Ex]

The whole 'Let's legalize all drugs and have no foreign policy' thing keeps people from becoming interested. Plus they are a party (though a minor one) and I don't support organized political parties as they exist now.

-B

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[realdpk]

Good question.

Should also ask:

Gray Davis was re-elected by the populace less than a year ago. What will you, Georgy Russell, do with your 10-11 months in office? Is it worth the expense and time and effort required to run for governor? Can you accomplish all of your goals in under a year?

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[Azghoul]

My dad used to ask me, "Who said life was fair?"

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[cheezedawg]

The funny thing is that Gray Davis is doing a decent job.

You are definately in a minority if you believe that.

Much of the deficit is Enron's fault (I seem to recall that taking roughly $30 billion to clean up)

I think the upper estimates of the cost of the energy crisis were around $4 billion. That hurts, but that does not bring the deficit from $12 billion (like Davis was claiming during the campaign) to $35 billion. Davis wasn't responsible for creating the energy crisis mess, but he sure didn't handle the situation well when it came up (and signing those overpriced long term contracts in a panic 2 years ago didnt help either).

No, the problem with Davis is deeper than just the energy crisis. In Davis's first years in office, his budgets increased state spending by double digits each year. This was on unsustainable ".com-boom" tax revenue. During this time he also signed anti-business legislation, like the workers compensation act and the paid family leave act. As a result, businesses started leaving California en-masse. In fact, California has lost more jobs so far this year than the rest of the nation combined. As an icing on the cake, Davis went ahead and tripled the vehicle registration taxes a few months ago. In his mind this was going to increase revenue, but in reality it has just killed new car sales and further hurt the economy.

I think the most telling aspect of Davis has been his reaction to this whole thing. After the recall vote was certified, Davis could have gone out and touted his accomplishments to clear his name. After all, if Davis is right and he shouldn't be recalled, then there should be some reasons to keep him in office, right? But no. The first thing he does is huddle in a room with some lawyers for a week to come up with a ridiculous suit against the recall process itself. When that fails, he flies to Chicago to meet with big labor union bosses to negotiate their "support". And instead of campaigning for himself, all he has done so far is belittle his opponents and the recall process in general.

No, I won't miss Davis at all.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[JeebusJones]

This might sound bizzare.....Could he also put himself down as a candidate. So the people who want to keep him tick the we dont want him box, but also tick the vote Davis box. This way he could get around the statistical problem JJ

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[BigFire]

Was it Enron's fault that he give the firefighter 90% pension? Was it Enron's fault that he expanded the state payroll based on the assumption that the internet bubble will last forever? Was it Enron's fault that he give away the bank when dealing with State Prison Guard union (who's one of his biggest campaign contributors)?

Joesph Gray Davis is good at three things:

1. Raise campaign money.
2. Run a dirty campaign.
3. Give away the house to his campaign contributors.

None of these qualified him as an effective governor.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.campvishus.org/PresPartyShare.htm

1992 = 43.2
1996 = 49.3

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[litesgod]

If Arnold or whoever else gets elected through this process, you can bet there will be an almost instantaneous recall campaign started by the Gray Davis faction.

Actually, I can almost guarentee there won't be. The dem's aren't stupid, doing something that childish would only further hurt their already dismall chances in '04 (not meant as a dig- just my opinion from the way I see the race shaping up). If any attempt is made, I will further guarentee it will be put down quite quickly from the left, even before the right has a chance to notice.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[Anonymous Coward]

the LT Governor of California isn't the right-hand man... he's elected separately

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[Toasty981]

Reminds me of one of my favorite Calvin and Hobbes (IMO the greatest comic strip ever) quotes:

"The world isn't fair, Calvin."
"I know. But why can't it ever be unfair in my favor?"

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[Martin Blank]

In California (can't speak for the other states, but I believe they're similar), the Lieutenant Governor is elected separately from the Governor. Back when Davis (a Democrat) was the Lt. Gov. for Pete Wilson (a Republican), the Democrat-strong Legislature would pass bills when Wilson was out of state (vacations, meeting business leaders, participating in meetings with other governors) so Davis could sign them into law. It kept Wilson in the state often, his out-of-state schedule usually closely synchronized with the Legislature's schedule.

This is opposite to how presidents and vice presidents are elected, which is as a part of the same ticket.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[El_Ge_Ex]

I sit (I'm at my desk, in Colorado no less) corrected.

Also, I oroginally come from the state where the last Lt. Governor to then try to run for the Head of the State had a last name that sounded like a death disorder. Let's see if anyone can guess what it is. :)

-B

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[cheezedawg]

10-11 months until what? Davis's current term is to 2006, and a replacement in the recall election would finish that whole term.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[Syberghost]

Unless you're quibbling over 3% here, what exactly was the point in asking him to look that up for you?

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[BrynM]

Methinks the reader was making a joke about the possibility of recalling whoever wins this election, which I have to admit would be ironic and even somewhat believable. I spoke to a republican friend this weekend who said that "they could just keep recalling until a republican is elected". I know he was joking, but there are idiots out there who would take such a suggestion seriously. Having someone else bring up the idea only scares me more.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[Martin Blank]

Besides, whoever is elected is protected from any recall efforts for six months after taking office, which would happen as soon as the election results were certified.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like Michigan, w/ good old Dick Posthumus.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[cheezedawg]

Your argument is based on the assumption that everybody that votes no on the recall would vote for Davis as a replacement. That would be true in many cases, but look at the campaign slogan of Lt Gov Bustamante to see how that could change. And either way, there are more people are voting against Davis than people voting for him.

I think it is fair because of one important reason- that is how the law is written. If a majority wants Davis out of office, then he is gone. Simple as that.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[fenix down]

In 1999, electricity cost the state $7.4 billion, in 2000, $32 billion, and in 2001 it will be $65 billion, according to George Brown of the PUC (LA Times, April 9). (from here)

Seems reasonable to me.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[realdpk]

Indeed. I cannot admit to coming up with the original thought, but it is something I'd like to see each of the candidates address. Of course, I am not a California resident any longer, so that may reduce my post's value (and karma).

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[cheezedawg]

Gotcha. My joke-o-meter must be low on batteries.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[Lemmy Caution]

There's a difference between fiscal conservatives who just want a sensible fiscal policy, and those who are adamantly opposed to virtually every aspect of the public sector. The libertarians are hyper-ideological, oftern resentful, and all too willing to throw out huge amounts of baby with the bathwater.

Also, they often don't understand utility value.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[CrowScape]

Uh, no. Voting not to recall Davis is not the same as voting for him. A whole lot of people will vote "no" not because they want Davis but because they don't like the recall itself regardless of the official it's targeting. In fact, if I were a Californian I would vote against recall, but from what I know of the guy I'd like just about anyone other than Davis in office.

And this can be justified fairly easily. The recall has been in place 90+ years and has been tried 100+ times, and only now that California is so economically screwed did it actually get anywhere. Seems to me the system is working so far, I just don't like the idea of no run-off election, but how else would Gary Coleman get into office?

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[PHoliday]

That's not unfair at all. If receiving a majority of the votes were a requirement for election, the elections would be held differently -- in a way that would produce a majority of votes. In that method, if Davis were allowed back on the ballot, he would probably lose.

Davis being recalled says that the majority of the state doesn't want Davis... being unable to agree on his successor doesn't make the process unfair. The argument here is nothing more than a scope-shift, and it's completely invalid.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[CracktownHts]

Perhaps if you read her website, you wouldn't have needed to ask.

Today our state faces a recall effort that stands as a right-hook to the already bloody nose of our democratic republic. Republicans who vigorously denounced as "undemocratic" the last minute replacement of Senate candidate Robert Toricelli before last year's election are now trying to replace a candidate after an election. Those who once attacked the do-as-you-please liberal culture have adopted that culture in full force, as long as it serves to increase their power.

This recall is a farce. It gives us no options and asks us "What's your decision?".

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[li99sh79]

Sounds like Michigan, w/ good old Dick Posthumus.

You know, i never really got a handle on Dick Posthumus's politics...i voted against him mostly because he was Engler's successor...and he has one of the most unfortunate names i've ever heard :)

-sam

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[li99sh79]

I think the recall is unfair because it required so few signatures in relation to the size of the state. They needed what, 900,000 signatures to move the recall initiative forward? And the state has how many people living there? it's between 40-60 million right? So by my math that means roughly 2% of the population needs to be peeved at the govenor to start a recall. That just does not sound like that much a "vote of no confidence" to me. Or am I missing something here?

Oh well, the mood of the country is supposedly determined by asking a couple thousand "random" people so i guess in those terms california was more precise. :/

-sam

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[Jhon]

And isn't that expense being passed on to the consumer and not in the state budget at all? So, basically what your saying is that the $40 billion budget "shortfall" could be viewed as $70 billion or $90 billion when you factor in the additional costs of electricity as a "taxpayer" expense.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[chill]

You are confusing things.

There are TWO votes on the same ballot.

The first is for recall -- there must be 50% or more voting for recall before they even LOOK at #2. He is the ONLY candidate in this part. There is no one else to vote for here.

The second is who to replace him with IF AND ONLY IF he is recalled. Then it needs only a plurality -- simply because they don't want the expense of a runoff.

Consider only 1 State official has EVER been successfully recalled (S. Dakota Governor, I think) in the last 100 years -- and HE then got elected to the Senate several times. Hardly unfair.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[entartete]

yeah, that sounds more like presidential candidate material.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[Abm0raz]

It seems unfair that Davis needs a majority of votes to remain in office, but a replacement candidate could be selected by a plurality.

Pardon me if I'm wrong, but I was always under the understanding that plurality is when multiple candidates run for a position. When the vote is completed, if there is no MAJORITY winner, the candidate with the least amount of votes (multiple if tied) is eliminated and everyone re-votes. Repeate the process ad infinitum until a majority candidate is procured. The effect of having multiple elections to determine 1 position is the reason it's called "plurality" (from plural, meaning "more than one").

This election is a straight election, whoever gets the most votes wins.

-Ab

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[Randolpho]

Others have responded already, but I'd like to also point out that *originally* the Vice President was not the President's right-hand man; he was the runner up of the presidential election. It was the 12th Amendment that changed it to the current system.

I personally also think the 12th Amendment should be repealed. :)

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[fenix down]

'Yeah, but are the alternatives any better?'

Why yes, yes they are. All of them. Even Ross Perot and his little vegan hippie clone.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. The reason for the budget shortfall was that California passed a half-assed deregulation law. They were trying to keep the price of energy artificially low for the consumers while the state absorbed the cost. Didn't work. People tried to tell them it wouldn't work. Nobody listened. Now the state is in deep debt. Tough shit.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[cens0r]

The majority of the state wants a recall. If that's the case, there should be another election, where davis is allowed to run. The scenerio that is set up makes it possible for the new governor to have less than 10% of the popular support. What to stop another recall then? Face it the law is poorly written and unfair.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[lostinchicago]

warped, i wouldnt vote for a lesbo... download some video..... maybe

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[Anonymous Coward]

I dare say that California doesn't even have a deficit. Go to this site and see for yourself. Politicians are NOT to be trusted; they love to hide money from you. Kinda like a beggar asking for money when his pockets are full of twenty dollar bills.

Oh, BTW, the info is correct. It comes from here.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, Bill Clinton got the plurality of votes. A majority is 50+%.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[Mostly Harmless]

I read something that made me laugh out loud. The sad thing about it is that it really wasn't very funny at all. Here it is, taken from an article on CNN.com:

"If voters do agree to recall [California Governor] Davis, a candidate needs only a plurality of votes to win. Schwarzenegger leads the long list of hopefuls, with 42 percent of poll respondents saying there is a good chance they would vote for him."

"Also in Schwarzenegger's favor is that 72 percent of respondents think his campaign should be taken seriously. More than half -- 52 percent -- say he would do a better job than a career politician."

The problem isn't that every other country (save perhaps England) hates us - the problem is that we hate ourselves. We stand up and rally behind our government, rah, rah, freedom of speech, support our troops, fuck Iraq, 9/11, recall the guv'ner, Freedom Fries, gay marriage. Mr. Bush you can kiss my ass.

We love to be lied to. It's our nature. We follow our politicians like we follow our movie stars, making every attempt to discern the real from the Hollywood. The problem is, it's all bullshit. On the election trail, we're reeled in - hook, line and rusty sinker - to the promise of lower taxes, no terrorism, better healthcare, more jobs. Hah. These are the same lying candidates who, by rite, lie to us once elected. The difference is, once they're elected, we don't accept the lies -- even if it's the same crap we bought to get them elected in the first place! We fiercely debate the competency of our elected officials without considering the competency of ourselves.

We, as a country, need to step back and take a good look at what we have become. Turn off the news and recycle the newspaper. It's time we had a better choice of news sources. When Fox News is the most liberal news source the general public is offered, you know it's time for reform. It's this conservative propoganda we're fed that may very well get Kindergarten Cop elected governor of the fifth largest economy in the world (trailing the rest of the US, Japan, Gremany, and the UK). What was that sound? Was that your head exploding? I thought so. We live in a country where we can make a circus out of the ailing economy of a single state while completely ignoring the massive deficit our own elected President has plunged our economy into.

But that's the difference between us and the rest of the world. We have a Hollywood. We also have the most successful (read: largest stable) democracy in the world. The problem is that we can't, or perhaps don't want to, distinguish between the two.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[Jhon]

I think you missed the point of my message. The state debt isn't related to the energy crisis -- they are unrelated. The cost of electricity has been passed on to the consumer. The $40 billion budget deficit is on TOP of that.

You need to remember, the state's answer to the energy scam was to raise consumer rates to pay the bloated expenses over the next decade or two. This is on top of a nearly 10% state sales tax and over 10% state income tax -- and NOT including the proposed income tax for county and city. How much can a state take away from it's citizins?

This *problem* is more related to the state legislature than Davis alone -- he just SIGNED all the spending bills -- the state house and assembly had to pass them. We need a gov who'll tell them to "get stuffed" -- not someone trying to make EVERYONE happy so he'll have a shot to use california as a spring-board to the whitehouse.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[PHoliday]

From a procedural standpoint, the law may be poorly written, but it is fair. If a majority of the folks want him out, he should be out.

Further, he wasn't ELECTED by a majority (48%, in fact), why should his replacement be required to get a majority?

The candidates ALREADY face a more difficult standard to get him OUT of office (majority vs. plurality) than it took him to get in. If you look at it honesty, the recall procedure is slanted IN FAVOR OF the incumbent, not against.

The recall and the subsequent election are separate issues and should be treated as such.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[squiggleslash]

Here's the scenario people are talking about.

Votes for "Do not recall Davis, we want to keep him": 49.9%
Votes for Larry Flynt: 30%

Flynt wins, because:

• Davis is unable to get 50% of the vote, and is thus recalled
• Davis is unable to stand in the election that follows, because he is constitutionally unable to do so
• Of the other candidates, Larry Flynt has the largest share of the vote. (Arnie comes close, at 29.9%. Problem is, that picture of Arnie with the naked woman sitting on his shoulders seriously undermines his credibility, people who would have voted for him go for Larry instead.)

Davis: 49.9% of the vote. Flynt: 30%. How would that be fair?

(All this is, obviously irrelevent if someone actually gets over 50% of the vote, or if Davis wins, but with hundreds of candidates standing, that seems highly unlikely to happen.)

(Oh, and while I know it's not going to happen, I somehow feel that Larry Flynt winning would be the best result for all, I don't think anyone would try to force a recall for a merely unpopular (rather than actually dangerous) governor again, especially on the grounds that the State is economically up shit creek - yeah, like an expensive and unnecessary election is going to help)

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[Anonymous Coward]

... Otherwise it would be like cutting off the head of the hydra only to have it replaced by another.


Welcome to politics!

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[cheezedawg]

I think the recall is unfair because it required so few signatures in relation to the size of the state

The number was based on the voter turnout in the 2002 elections. They needed signatures totalling 10% of the number of votes in the election (around 8 million).

it's between 40-60 million right?

30 million and shrinking...

So by my math that means roughly 2% of the population needs to be peeved at the govenor to start a recall.

The 1.5 million signatures that were collected are nothing to sneeze at. There have been over 30 recall attempts in the past, but none of them have succeeded.

Or am I missing something here?

Yes- if the majority really does want to keep Davis, then they will vote no on the recall on Oct 7.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[L0rdJedi]

You're missing something. The recall is not dependant on the population of the state or the number of registered voters. It's a percentage of the number of people that voted in the last election. If I'm not mistaken, it's 15%. That should be a big wake up call to all the idiots out here (yes, I live in California) that don't get out and vote. I think turnout in the last election was about 40% of the registered population (it could be lower, I can't remember right now) which means that Davis only one by a little over half of that, about 25-30%.

So while only 900,000 signatures were needed (they collected nearly 2 million by the way) a lot of people want him gone. And no, it wasn't people going door to door gathering signatures. Sure, some gatherers sat outside supermarkets, but everything I've heard suggests that people would walk up and ask them where they can sign. No one was bugged to sign the recall. Everyone did it willingly (Republicans and Democrats).

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[deanj]

You never know though... other state parties have been doing some pretty childish things, so I wouldn't put it past them.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[reflective recursion]

I don't live in cali. nor do I know everything about all the candidates (why would I?), but I think Flynt or Georgy would be the better choices. Flynt started out very young with his own business (bootlegging moonshine) and has dealt with the law on numerous occasions. From his experience with Hustler magazine I'm sure he knows how to keep money flowing into a business and knows what it takes. Whereas Arnold probably has an agent and doesn't even need to find movies to star in. They just land in his lap. Flynt will lose though, just because he is unpopular. Who really wants to say that they have a pornographer as governor?

On the other side is Georgy, who is a computer programmer. The experience of dealing with constraints and trade-offs such as speed/time/memory/etc. would probably fit in well with constraints of running a state. Though, unlike Larry Flynt, there is no proof that I know of that she was a successful programmer. She, too, will most likely lose to Arnold.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[Anonymous Coward]

A democrat will declare anything unfair if it hurts the democratic party. The democratic party's definition of fair is that which benefits the democratic party.

Not that republicans are much better....

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[Pxtl]

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.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[lambadomy]

Thinking a vote of no confidence is fair does not make the recall fair. In the recall, davis has to get 50%+ of the votes (votes against the recall). If he does not, he cannot win, even if no other candidate gets more votes than there were against the recall. While I do not know, I do not believe this 50% burden applies in votes of no confidence.

The moment a new governor is elected (if one is), I believe a new recall action could begin. How would someone who only got, say, 25-30% of the vote in the recall election win against another recall? The whole process is absurd and needs to be stopped. I'd imagine whoever the new governor is their first order of business will be to get the recall process scrapped.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[cens0r]

To truly be fair, once he is recalled there should be a new election. The the one with the most votes becomes governor. Because there is only one vote it stops being fair. Sure more than 50% of the people want him gone, but if they can't pick someone they like more why should the new guy get to be governor?

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[carlos_benj]

The candidates ALREADY face a more difficult standard to get him OUT of office (majority vs. plurality) than it took him to get in. If you look at it honesty, the recall procedure is slanted IN FAVOR OF the incumbent, not against.

Right. The complainers aren't looking at this properly. There are two questions being asked:

1. Do we want this guy as our governor? Yes/No

2. If not, who do we want?

The numbers or percentages of votes in either have no relationship to the other.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[Uggy]

Bah, do you fire the baseball players when they have a bad season? No, you get yourself a new manager. He'll make some changes that he thinks will increase the chances for team success, just like a president/governor. The guy in charge, his fault or not, has got to take responsibility and move aside. 3 bad seasons in a row? Yer outa there. New guy comes in, doesn't make many personnel changes, and bam, team makes the playoffs. So his players weren't actually crap. It's about leadership style, work environment, and how well he compliments the talents and tempraments of his players. Or sometimes, just dumb luck.

When things are going poorly, the work environment becomes poisoned, so much so that it is nearly impossible to turn around. In cases like California he's (Davis) has just got to take it on the chin and suck it up. Maybe someone'll pick him to be the new head of the RIAA or something.

And when baseball teams do well? Well the managers get the kudos: "manager of the year," a fat raise, extended contract, etc. But guess what, he didn't get one single RBI, homerun, stolen base, strikeout, or double play. But he got to take credit for leading his team to success.

It works both ways.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[Anonymous Coward]

The impeachment process is more fair as it places the congress (the voters, as it were) at political risk which adds a strong note of checks and balances to the process of removing a publically elected official. The recall process has no such risk and is open to massive abuse, i.e. political opponents may simply buy the signatures.

I personally hope a rich guy starts a new recall effort the day after the new person is elected, to prove the point.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe there should be a runoff between the top 50 candidates.

Just kidding; the only workable solution for an election like this is approval voting.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[pizzaman100]

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

California has an eight year term limit. Since this is Davis' second term, he can't run again.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[GlassHeart]

The only people that are upset by this process are people like Davis that think that they are losing power.

Untrue. I'm irritated by the process because the original vote has an expiry date of four years, and Davis got that vote. A recall is, if not expensive, then at least highly disruptive to the job of governing. Even if Davis survives, for a few months his top priority would inevitably shift to the fight to stay in office. If he doesn't survive, then a transition period to a new government will be similarly costly, especially in terms of opportunities. A recall, if you will pardon the expression, is a big blunt instrument that should be reserved for the direst of consequences. Put another way, the new governor has to be so good that he or she can offset all of these additional tangible or intangible costs. In this case, a new Republican governor would likely face a rather hostile Democratic legislature. How much is likely to get done?

So don't paint everybody with the same brush.

the people don't want him in office anymore- thats why the recall statutes were put on the books in the first place!

No, it's not. The way to do that is to vote him out on the next election. The incumbent should get the benefit of the doubt under the great majority of circumstances during the elected term. Besides, voters (and most particularly the losing party from the last election) need to learn to live with the consequences of their choices. Life's like that.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[Anonymous Coward]

majority? right now he's flirting with a %20 approval rating, if this was Texas they might have had him shot already. but seriously if 4/5th's of this state agrees on anything thats simply unpresidented.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[PHoliday]

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.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[FireBreathingDog]

On the other side is Georgy, who is a computer programmer. The experience of dealing with constraints and trade-offs such as speed/time/memory/etc. would probably fit in well with constraints of running a state

If you're going to make gross generalities about Flynt and Schwarzenegger based on their jobs, then why don't you at least consider this:

Programmers tend to be very poor at dealing with people. However, dealing with people is an important trait of a politician and an executive, of which a governor is both...

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[cens0r]

don't bring up taxpayers money into this. It already is a waste of their money.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[Anonymous Coward]

He'd have been hung, an approval rating below 25% is a capital offense in Texas...

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[catfood]

No, it is not a straight election. It is two elections. The recall is a yes/no question: Do you want to remove Davis from office? Davis must win a majority (or tie I suppose) to keep his job. If he is removed, then the other question on the ballot is who will replace him, for which a mere plurality is required.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[pmz]

I think the most telling aspect of Davis has been his reaction to this whole thing. After the recall vote was certified, Davis could have gone out and touted his accomplishments to clear his name. After all, if Davis is right and he shouldn't be recalled, then there should be some reasons to keep him in office, right? But no. The first thing he does is huddle in a room with some lawyers for a week to come up with a ridiculous suit against the recall process itself. When that fails, he flies to Chicago to meet with big labor union bosses to negotiate their "support". And instead of campaigning for himself, all he has done so far is belittle his opponents and the recall process in general.

Granted, many people are unhappy with the current Republican administration; however, the above discussion about Davis is a good example why a Democratic administration would be no better.

Vote for a third party in 2004! Isn't it time to stir the pot a bit? Isn't it time to set the status quo on edge?

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[praedor]

Davis may be a jerk on a personal level, but he is most assuredly not directly responsible for California's woes, which is what his opponents (those who started this recall bullcrap) are doing. He doesn't have the control of the budget to cause the problem, the state legislature does. He didn't kill the state budget, the energy companies did with their ILLEGAL market manipulation. They aren't getting properly punished for this, and California isn't getting justly compensated for this, and the contracts (written under false pretense) aren't being tossed because Bush/Cheney are best buds with the energy criminals that screwed California.

Gray Davis is NOT the cause of California's problems, the legislator and more directly, the criminal Bush/Cheney energy companies are.

California's referendum bullshit law needs to be tossed. Through the manipulation of rich far-right Bush/Cheney buddies California's governing system has been turned into something equivalent to that of Italy's. I hope now that every single governor gets referendumed out of office every 2 years and the state goes totally bankrupt so that the law will finally be seen as the idiocy it truly is.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[PHoliday]

So say the democrats, but apparently the electorate doesn't feel the same way.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[_krimson_]

Bah, do you fire the baseball players when they have a bad season? No, you get yourself a new manager.

Correct! Now why don't you add two and two together, and explain why we have elections every so often?

That's right! To get a new manager.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[tenchiken]

It is not Davis's fault per se, he is running into the same problem that the Federal Government is running into. The insane 5% year after year growth in tax revenues and the sudden contraction of a 15 trillian $ economy into a 12. While Republicans try to blame Davis and Democrats try to blame Bush, neither of them have the kind of control that would actually cause this in the short term. (I do think that you can argue that policies such as the lack of intervention on the bubble by Greenspan and Clinton had a effect, but this crash started in 99, before either Bush or Davis was making waves).

The enron stuff was a fiasco, but it was not a 30 billion a year fiasco. Davis's mis-management of it (including signing energy deals after the crisis was over) and his attempt to bully the federal government into bailing out his state is really what is in the limelight here.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[squiggleslash]

In addition to, as you say, being a successful businessman, Flynt also has an excellent record on civil liberties, and right now I think that ought to be a requirement for a politician.

He's not much of a diplomat though.

Part of me liking the idea of him coming to power though is that the very people organizing this recall would see his succession as being the ultimate wrong result - Flynt and the Right Wing are, to put it mildly, not the best of friends.

People really have to be careful before organizing recalls, impeachments, etc. The circumstances have to be right, not just politically, but on every moral level too.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[Randolpho]

That's an excellent point. I forgot that the California recall does not require a majority for the winning candidate.

Which is dangerously bad.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[Avihson]

Davis is not running for governor. He is trying to not get recalled. Now is he wants to, he can announce his intention to run as his own successor, and then if he is recalled, he will have a chance of getting back in.

No matter how you try to spin it, he is NOT in the election yet. He is only getting booted out or not.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[Anonymous Coward]

how could that be Enron's fault?

First of all, I'll call you an ignoramous and a liar, because if Enron made $30 billion dollars off of California then they'd still be around, and wouldn't have needed to cook the books, would they?

Secondly, Enron did make money in California, but they made it "honestly", by being the lowest bidder on the spot market when California power plants failed to deliver. Whether Enron's collusion with public utilities in the Northwest (Esp. Montana and Oregon) was ethical is a different matter. The point here is that Enron was often the *least* expensive source of power when California municipalities needed it.

Thirdly, it was Gray Davis, making insane backroom deals with Enron's higher priced competitors (esp. GE, DBA California Edison) that put Enron out of business, and more to the point, caused such a voter backlash against Governor Davis to make the recall happen.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[lambadomy]

I'd have no problem with the recall if it didn't put the incumbent at such a disadvantage in terms of vote requirements. If he doesn't get 50% of the vote, he loses. 49% of the people can say "no" to a recall, and the winning replacement candidate would win, no matter what percentage of the vote they get. This is ridiculous, they should be seperate ballots entirely. First people should vote on the recall itself, yes or no. Then, a month or whatever later, a new "who should be the governor" election, which Davis can also run in. The only problem with this plan, for me, is that Davis would almost definitely win, and I can't say I really want him as governor.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, Davis is the only person who gets his name on the ballot for free. He carried way more than 50 percent of the vote during the election, what's he afraid of now?

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[Anonymous Coward]

"throw out huge amounts of baby with the bathwater."

Thanks for a gyro-and-dr-pepper-through-the-nose moment at work today.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[Anonymous Coward]

A picture is hung. Men are hanged.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[reflective recursion]

I just might have, except I wasn't making gross generalizations based on jobs. If you have ever seen Flynt in action, then I seriously doubt you'd think he was any better than Georgy (at least based on her web site) in terms of communicating with others. As for Arnold, well, what can I say? He doesn't bring much to the table in terms of communication, business knowledge, etc. There was a joke on Letterman, I believe, right after Arnold announced he was running . IIRC, Dave said something like "Arnold announced he was running, at least that's what we think he said."

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[Simon Kongshoj]

a recall system that relies on honesty and virtuous politicians.

So, basically, it's the political equivalent of the r-tools?

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[cheezedawg]

I'm irritated by the process because the original vote has an expiry date of four years, and Davis got that vote.

The recall statutes have been on the books for most of the century. Ever since then the term of the Governor has been either 4 years, or until enough people get pissed off to boot him out, whichever comes first. There is no manipulation or trickery in this recall- it is a constitutional right afforded by California.

A recall is, if not expensive, then at least highly disruptive to the job of governing.

Great- then Davis should campaign on that principle instead of working more backroom deals with special interest groups. And the recall advocates need(ed) to demonstrate why it is better for Davis to be recalled than to leave him in office (and IMO, they have shown that quite well).

The way to do that is to vote him out on the next election...voters (and most particularly the losing party from the last election) need to learn to live with the consequences of their choices.

We are dealing with the consequences of our choices, and we are doing so by using the constitutional provision of a recall election. This is pure democracy at work!

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[li99sh79]

You're missing something. The recall is not dependant on the population of the state or the number of registered voters. It's a percentage of the number of people that voted in the last election. If I'm not mistaken, it's 15%. That should be a big wake up call to all the idiots out here (yes, I live in California) that don't get out and vote. I think turnout in the last election was about 40% of the registered population (it could be lower, I can't remember right now) which means that Davis only one by a little over half of that, about 25-30%.

That's pretty typical across the country, the turnout is abysmal, even in presidental election years. Wasn't it under 50% in 2000? Makes you wonder what the political landscape would look like if the turnout was even just 10-25% higher.

So it requires 10% of the total voter turnout, doesn't that help prove my point since you need an even smaller percentage of the total population? Or can you only ask the people who actually voted if they suppor the recall, and is there even a mechanism to know that? My point is that there are probably more than 900,000 republicans in california, and i know there are more than 900000 democrats. What's to stop another recall initiative being put forward by the loosing party of this one? And so on and so forth. If you try hard enough you can come up with some dirt on anyone.

One final thought, wasn't the great apology for the budget deficits under Reagen was that Congress passed all the budgets, is not the same true in California? Why is it that Reagen gets a pass for the crippling federal deficits of the 1980's while Davis is being run out of office? Not that I care greatly. I know there are some people who are worried that GOP governor will through the state to Duhbya in '04, but I'm not convinced the governor can influence a state to that greatly, Engler was a big Bush backer but Michigan still voted for Gore in '04.

-sam

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[cheezedawg]

I'd have no problem with the recall if it didn't put the incumbent at such a disadvantage in terms of vote requirements

I disagree. The burdon is on the recall advocates to get a majority vote on the recall. That is a pretty high burdon- higher than the requirements to be elected in the first place. Davis only needed a plurality to win last November, but now the recall advocates need a majority to recall him.

This is ridiculous, they should be seperate ballots entirely.

They essentially are seperate ballots. You can vote 'no' on the recall, but still vote for a replacement. I don't see how adding a month between the two would help anything. It would just cost more money and be harder to get people to vote both times.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[geekee]

"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. "

That 40%, if it exists, has the option to vote for an alternative candidate, even though they voted no on the recall effort.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[cens0r]

I'm hardly a democrat. If I had my druthers, voting and signing petitions would be a very hard thing to do in this country. I think it should be a privlage and not a right, and you should prove that you know what you're doing first. The populace is too stupid to make most of these decisions.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[Anonymous Coward]

So you can't ever get rid of a manager before his contract is up?

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[FireBreathingDog]

He doesn't bring much to the table in terms of communication, business knowledge, etc. There was a joke on Letterman, I believe, right after Arnold announced he was running . IIRC, Dave said something like "Arnold announced he was running, at least that's what we think he said."

This reply is not directed at you, but is made for the benefit of those who--unlike you--develop their political opinions based on things other than late-night talk-show monologues:

I was not inclined to support Schwarzenegger until I read this article...now may have to rethink my position

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[holt]

I don't think that's true. I have read in a couple of places that if Davis gets recalled, he is forbidden to run in the run-off election.

The recall process really isn't fair.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[L0rdJedi]

What's to stop another recall initiative being put forward by the loosing party of this one?

Absolutely nothing and the anti-recall forces have already said that they will take out a recall petition as soon as the election is certified. They'll have to come up with enough signatures to get it qualified for the ballot though and that's likely where they'll get stopped.

The difference between Davis and Reagan is, first of all, huge. It's not just the budget that has everyone angry at Davis. He signed costly energy contracts at the last minute instead of taking care of things sooner. He tripled the car registration fee, BREAKING the law in the process (a fee increase is required to go through the assembly and state senate, he did not do that). He hired 40,000 employees during a hiring freeze. He allowed the state to blead $1 billion dollars per day unnecessarily (I don't know exactly what this was for, but I understand that it did happen). The worst Reagan can be accused of is giving us a high federal deficit, but at the same time he was cutting everyones taxes. That means you get more money to spend. Right now, California has no money to spend.

And actually, what those people are hoping for, the ones that think a GOP governor might throw the state, is that the state will be in such trouble at that point, that the people in California will welcome change at the state level and keep things the way they are at the federal level.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[CleverNickName]

And instead of campaigning for himself, all he has done so far is belittle his opponents and the recall process in general.

This is the defining characteristic of Gray Davis. I think this recall is wrong, and I will vote against it on principle, but Gray Davis is a useless bunch of crap. In the last election here, he never touted his own achievements. He just demonized his opponents, and took negative campaigning to an all-time low.

Darryl Issa (and his puppet-master Karl Rove) have certainly abused California's constitution to force this recall, but I don't think they could have been successful if Davis wasn't such a flagrant moron.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[autopr0n]

Whereas Arnold probably has an agent and doesn't even need to find movies to star in. They just land in his lap.

Arnold was a self-made millionare before he even got into the movie biz, with his own line of workout equpipment and real-estate stuff.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[Anonymous Coward]

You, as a person, need to put the crack pipe down and pick up a book on learning how to write. Your thoughts are rambling and incoherent.

BTW, WTF is up with 'hook, line, and rusty sinker?' Sinkers are made of lead, you dolt, and they do not rust. Just more evidence of how you are a complete fucking moron.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[zcollier]

As a lifetime resident of California, I believe the recall is entirely fair. How do you figure it's a gross abuse of the recall system when the recall system has never before been employed? How do you figure it's an abuse of the system when over 1 million signatures needed to be collected? Grey Davis did not "inherit" the current problems from a previous administration. He's been in office for 6 years. He's had a hand in creating them.

I don't know whether to dismiss your comments as purely partisan or purely ignorant. Are you even a resident of California?

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[Daetrin]

I've found specific references for the intial $3 billion bailout package that the government gave to California Edison to help patch up the energy crisis. I know that the government was also talking about funding new power plants or something like that, so $3 billion might be just the begining of the amount spent on the energy crisis.

Oh, and as long as we're talking about tax issues, part of the problem is the voter proposition that limited property taxes to something insanely small. We're paying more in sales and income taxes so property owners can get a break, and that one is entirely the fault of the voters.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[Anonymous Coward]

Living in California, I have heard many colorful descriptions of Gray Davis, but being hung has never been one of them.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[Anonymous Coward]

We're paying more in sales and income taxes so property owners can get a break

More specifically long term property owners. Folks luck enough to have owned property since 1976 are paying basically NOTHING in taxes

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[Hentai]

Arnie comes close, at 29.9%. Problem is, that picture of Arnie with the naked woman sitting on his shoulders seriously undermines his credibility, people who would have voted for him go for Larry instead.) ... This is so ironic it's not even funny.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[Anonymous Coward]

According to the Sacramento Bee, over 13 billion dollars of state money was spent to enusre adequate power was provided to the state during the summer of 2001. This amount was then financed as revenue bonds, though with all but one Republican legislator opposed.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[Alsee]

If I had my druthers, voting and signing petitions would be a very hard thing to do in this country.

Putting in artificial obstacles so that the majority don't bother to vote just increases the influence of fanatical fringe groups who WILL make the effort required.

I think it should be a privlage and not a right, and you should prove that you know what you're doing first.

Google vote "literacy test" puts you in bad company on that suggestion. As much as I'd love to boot all of the idiot sheeple out of the election process, any attempt to deny people the RIGHT to vote and reclassify it as a PRIVILIGE is a Bad Idea. It will inevitably be abused in one way or another.

-

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[squiggleslash]

Hey it hasn't actually happened yet...

BTW, the picture I was refering to is here. As a Brit, I think most Americans will actually be more offended by his teeth in this picture than anything else...

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[Daetrin]

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.

How is that the case? If people still like him better than the other candidates, how is it not democratic for him to get the job again.

As it is, it's conceivable that 50.1% of the people could decide they hate Davis, but the new governor is elected with 10% of the vote and 90% of the people hate this new person. If Larry Flynt or that porn star somehow managed to pull off a win, do you think there wouldn't be another immediate recall which would waste even more taxpayer dollars?

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[reflective recursion]

Seems you just can't win today. Your article says the following:

Running for governor was "the most difficult [decision] I've made in my entire life," he told Jay Leno, "except the one I made in 1978 when I decided to get a bikini wax."

Of course, it's not a monologue, but the author of the article is basing his opinion on it and it is late-night television. Want to take another stab? Jackass..

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[PHoliday]

Think about it... if you allow the recalled gov back on the ballot w/o a primary, you're essentially guaranteeing them a victory. It would be nearly impossible for one candidate of 200 to garner more votes than the incumbent, unless said person had killed someone.

But answer this question, if the majority of the state wants him out, why should he be allowed back on the ballot? What about that isn't completely insane? My bet is that the only argument is "But the other candidates would get fewer votes!" Which isn't much of one.

Further, IIRC, a recall can't take place for six months after an election, so that's what's stopping an immediate recall. On top of that (as if we needed more) just because 90% didn't vote FOR someone, doesn't mean they'd vote FOR that person's recall.

The fairness of the recall has nothing to do with the subsequent election of the recalled governor's replacement. Period.

Finally, I think you'd find officials getting elected with 10% (or whatever) of the vote in MOST elections (recall or otherwise) without a primary system.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[Valiss]

This is the defining characteristic of Gray Davis. I think this recall is wrong, and I will vote against it on principle, but Gray Davis is a useless bunch of crap.

Translation: I dont like what's going on but I won't do anything about it.

NIMBY.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[Anonymous Coward]

Allow the anti-ignorant-slave-to-their-english-teacher's-eve ry-slavering-dribble nazi to step in for a moment to remind you all that men are only hanged in an expression such as "he was hanged" but not in the sense of "he would have been hung"r, despite what any pointy head tries to deridingly regurgitate to boost their self-esteem with misunderstood arbitrary semantic trivia.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because 50.1% voted to boot Davis?

How is it any less democrat that a majority vote should bar a person from office than that a majority vote should elect someone to office?

Remember, the ballot has TWO questions on it. One recall yes/no and one for the replacement candidate. They're separate votes--on the same ballot strictly for convenience--and no one is being disenfranchised here.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[Anonymous Coward]

We don't elect dictators in America, so there isn't really a divine mandate the Governor Davis rule over us for another 4 years.

Also, you are working on the assumption that having the government do more is actually a good thing. Many of those who want Davis recalled believe the opposite.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[Anonymous Coward]

Gray Davis is best buds with the energy companies that are screwing California, and he used emergency executive powers to cement criminally high priced long-term contracts with them. Bush/Cheney's energy buds went out of business, remember?

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[ShadowRage]

I hope you die in a hotel fire.. grey davis cheated his way through the last election by using OUR tax dollars to fund his campaign and appealed to the mexican american voters by promising a thing he never went through on.. he's a crook, he sold us out, and then when he got back in, he decided to start taxing us to hell.. no, let's not wait until his term is over, as americans, we have right to kick him out whenever we want to kick him out, basically, many americans forget this.. you technically could do it to the president, but you're more than likely to get shot by a sniper or accused of being a terrorist if you do that.. But anyways.. yeah.. we have all damn right to kick that motherfucker outta ower.. he isnt so above us where we have to mindlessly worship him, look up your american rights for once.. we have those powers stiil, even though we're never told about them or they act as though those rights no longer exist. so.. yeah.. dont say he deserves to stay in till his term is up.. if he's doing a bad job on his current term and he's a threat to the stability of the state.. then we have total right to force him into resignation, becuase it's either him or us. he isnt some god, he works for us, he screws us up.. we can save ourselves.. end of question.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[GlassHeart]

We don't elect dictators in America, so there isn't really a divine mandate the Governor Davis rule over us for another 4 years.

I'm not talking about a heavenly mandate. I'm talking about efficient government. Elections are expensive exercises, because the incumbent has to divert attention to the re-election, and an actual change of office would disrupt various little things. These effects are minimized by not having elections too close together (nor too far apart, lest the incumbent get lazy.)

Also, you are working on the assumption that having the government do more is actually a good thing. Many of those who want Davis recalled believe the opposite.

I'm not talking about doing things. I'm talking about attention. You can pay a lot of attention to a problem or crisis, and choose to do nothing. However, not having time to pay attention to the problem will virtually guarantee that you do the wrong thing.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[Mostly Harmless]

I need to learn how to write? Um...okay. I happen to know a thing or two about the subject, but that's beside the point. I wrote a rant. Rants, by definition, don't have to be coherent. I'm, not writing a letter to the New York Times, now, am I?

Oh, and by the way, lead oxide is very real. Salt water will rust lead. Why don't you go and read a book. You might learn something.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[GlassHeart]

The recall statutes have been on the books for most of the century. Ever since then the term of the Governor has been either 4 years, or until enough people get pissed off to boot him out, whichever comes first.

I'm not asking you to agree with me. I'm asking you to retract your incorrect statement that the only people opposed to you are doing so because they fear losing power. Can you understand the difference? Similarly:

Great- then Davis should [...]

Try also to understand that some people may dislike the recall simply on principle, not as it applies to Davis or any other candidate. Point is, I for one believe that if a person wins an election, the populace should live with that choice for the duration of the term unless something truly catastrophic can be personally attributed to the candidate. That is, poor economy, bad breath, or general stupidity don't count. This is because recalls are terribly disruptive.

I hope it's clear that my single counterexample already disproves your assertion that everybody opposed to the recall has some vested interest in Davis. I just don't think he should be bothered just because people disagree with his policies.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[ChopsMIDI]

Actually, Arnold is incredibly intelligent.

He was a bodybuilder who put himself through business school, developing a fitness business after repeatedly winning top competitions. He began investing successfully in real estate, and was a millionaire long before he became a movie star.

He was eventually given an honorary doctorate from the Univeristy of Wisconsin-Superior.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[Antisoul]

Perhaps, I'm missing something here. Why, exactly, would people who have a problem with Arnold posing with a naked woman on his shoulders vote for a pornographer? I would think that Flynt would be the last person that someone with a moral objection to Arnold would vote for.

"The earth is flat, and anyone who disputes this claim is an atheist who deserves to be punished." -Sheik Abdel-Aziz Ibn Baaz, Supreme religious authority, Saudi Arabia and author of a Muslim religious edict, 1993

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[Asmodean]

Whereas Arnold probably has an agent and doesn't even need to find movies to star in. They just land in his lap.

You do realise that Arnold is not just a movie star, but a very successful businessman a well, yes?

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[squiggleslash]

Perhaps, I'm missing something here. Why, exactly, would people who have a problem with Arnold posing with a naked woman on his shoulders vote for a pornographer? I would think that Flynt would be the last person that someone with a moral objection to Arnold would vote for.

Wow, you don't say!

You know, that never occured to me ;-)

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[squiggleslash]

Your point would be valid if Davis was on the second ballot too. He isn't.

In practice, this is a case of 49% of the people voting for a candidate, and a candidate with 30% of the vote winning. Just because it's worded as two different questions doesn't change that given the first question biases the second (by removing the potentially most popular (or least unpopular ;-) candidate from the running.

I agree it would be completely fair if Davis was on both ballots, or maybe even if there was a third ballot to hold the "winning candidate" to the same standard as Davis. Neither are the case: He isn't going to be running again, constitutionally he's barred from being one of those running; and the logistics of a no-confidence vote where, presumably, either the result is announced and there's a vote the very next week, or everyone can vote on each candidate on a person-by-person "Yes, if this one's elected, keep him or her", "No, if elected, throw this one out and have another election.", is, frankly such a nightmare it wouldn't happen even if it was constitutional to do so, which it isn't.

This is why recalls are generally stupid. It's great to have such a weapon at the electorate's disposal, but it needs to be used as a last resort. This time it's been abused.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[Bush Pig]

You could - if you put out a contract of your own ...

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[Antisoul]

Well, I was just wondering, because you said that Arnold posing with the woman would cause people to vote for Larry instead of Arnold, but, hey, if it didn't occur to you.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[arcturus21]

The recall and the subsequent election are separate issues and should be treated as such.

exactly. thats why he should be allowed to run in the second such issue.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[jimmyharris]

So can those in the US please recall George Bush for creating a record deficit of (at least) US$455 billion? The rest of the world wants him recalled for other reasons, but any recall will do...

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[Anonymous Coward]

Assuming he were allowed to run, then the situation would be equivalent to the following:

Some people want to hold a new election because they don't like the choices they were given in the previous election. Then if the recall vote passes, a new election is held with those choices plus some new ones (Gallagher, Gary Coleman, Larry Flynt, the porn star, the 100-year-old lady, Angelyne, etc.). Now everybody is happy.

On the other hand, if he is not allowed to run (and so far, he isn't), then a new election is held with *some* of those original choices, plus some new ones, but the one original choice that had the plurality in the initial election is eliminated. It's sort of like a runoff in reverse; eliminate the winner and hold the election again with a larger field.

On the other other hand, if Davis resigns before the election, then a vacancy is created that can only be filled from the Lieutenant Governor's office, and the scheduled election is void. This gives Davis the ability to "fix" the outcome (at a personal sacrifice), if he wants to. Epilogue: All who wanted the runoff to happen are furious, and all hell breaks loose.

Really, unless a white knight candidate that everyone can agree on comes in and wins a majority against the other 157 candidates (or whatever the final number is), is there a winning scenario here?

The only good solution remaining would be to hold the election using approval voting, but that won't happen.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[lambadomy]

If you vote "no", you then cannot vote for Davis as his own replacement. Thats my point, and my problem with the situation. Yes, the recall process needs to get a 50% vote to even happen, as it should, but I don't feel that Davis should be under the same burden when he was already elected governor.

Originally, the recall process was not even going to allow people who voted against the recall to vote for a new governor. While that has been changed, I find it hard to swallow that the new governor would be legitimate if, say, the recall only gets 55% of the vote, and no candidate gets over 40% of the "who should replace davis" vote. This would imply that the recall candidate could not beat Davis even when the Davis supporters were allowed to vote twice.

My reasoning for the seperate ballots is only to allow Davis to actually run in the recall election if he is recalled, which I feel is only fair, especially since I think he would win. If they placed his name on the "who should replace Davis" side of the ballot it would be pretty much the same thing, I mostly suggested the month seperation because I think people would get really confused to see Davis on both sides.

It's moot either way. But I wonder how easy it would be to just run another recall drive for whoever wins. I can't imagine a winning candidate who doesn't get over 30% of the vote being very secure against another recall.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[Jhon]

#1 What does Bush have to do with the Davis recall?

#2 a US ANYTHING of Bush is the USs business. Bugger off.

#3 The "record" deficit, as you put it is, when adjusted for inflation, quite smaller than that under Roosevelt and Truman. What did they have to deal with? Oh yeah. A rancid economy and a war. At least TRY to be interesting and not a leftest sheep. Or a right wing sheep for that matter.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[Jeremi]

I think a plurality of 15% or less (which is quite likely in a race with so many candidates) is also rather preposterous....

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[Jeremi]

But answer this question, if the majority of the state wants him out, why should he be allowed back on the ballot? What about that isn't completely insane?

A majority of the state wants Davis out, yes... but not at any cost. In particular, they want him replaced with someone who they prefer. Obviously, people wouldn't want Davis replaced by someone they hate even more!

Finally, I think you'd find officials getting elected with 10% (or whatever) of the vote in MOST elections (recall or otherwise) without a primary system.

True, if the voting system only allows the voters to vote for a single candidate. Such voting systems are woefully inadequate for races with more than two or three serious candidates. More sophisticated voting systems (IRV, Borda count, approval voting, etc) that allow voters to rank candidates are able to handle large candidate pools without such problems.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[Jeremi]

Davis wasn't responsible for creating the energy crisis mess, but he sure didn't handle the situation well when it came up (and signing those overpriced long term contracts in a panic 2 years ago didnt help either).

So, what would you have done if you were in his position, then?

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[Jhon]

Have you read your reference?

The bonds would be paid off by the top 180,000 of the utility's large and medium-sized business consumers. Homeowners and smaller businesses would not be burdened with the cost.

Like I said, it's been passed to rate payers. This one single example dates back to 2001 -- there are others more recent. Those numbers aren't listed in CA's budget as expenditures so aren't part of the deficit at all.

And as you say, "Oh, and as long as we're talking about tax issues", this is a pretty good observation of what Prop 13 did for CA -- and similar thinking in AZ.

From the article:

Businesses don't locate their plant facilities as a matter of social conscience. Businesses locate their plant facilities to make an after-tax rate of return for their shareholders. And taxes do matter. They matter a lot. California and Arizona both prove that point.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[Jhon]

I don't think you or the others who quote that article understand how bond's work. Read THIS

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[Jeremi]

Vote for a third party in 2004! Isn't it time to stir the pot a bit? Isn't it time to set the status quo on edge?

After the 2000 election, I don't think third parties are going to get much traction in 2004. People see them only having a spoiling effect -- voting third party has the same effect as staying home, as far as the results are concerned.

But all is not lost... the Democrats have a very impressive candidate in the running this time.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[Jeremi]

It's a very simple black & white issue... Being able to hide your major failings until after an election should not give you a free pass

What major failings of Davis were kept secret until after the election? AFAIK everybody knew Davis sucked well before the election ... he had been governor already for four years, after all. We re-elected him anyway (because the Republican guy was even worse).

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[evilviper]

What major failings of Davis were kept secret until after the election?

The incredible budget deficit primarily. Just about the day after he was re-elected, every major news network covered the story.

everybody knew Davis sucked well before the election ... he had been governor already for four years, after all. We re-elected him anyway (because the Republican guy was even worse).

People knew he sucked, but not how terribly so... He was not re-elected because he was any better than Bill Simon, he was re-elected because the great majority of Californians are very liberal, so it takes some very very serious reasons for most people to vote for a conservative.

I voted for Simon because I knew it would have been practically impossible for him to do any worse than Davis. Then again, I would say I'm well above the average Californian when it comes to political knowledge, and I can tell when a politican is incompotent, I don't have to wait for absolute proof of that like most people (which is why Bush managed to get elected).

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[Anonymous Coward]

What does Bush have to do with the Davis recall?

The main (claimed) reason for the Republican efforts to get the recall has been the budget deficit. Adjusted for inflation or not, I do think that it is a bit strange that one deficit is reason enough for a recall, but another is "no big deal".

As much as we dislike Gray Davis, this recall is setting very bad standards. Getting 1 million signatures is no big deal for either of the two big parties. Should we have another recall next summer? After all, if e.g. Arnold is elected with 40% of the votes, 60% will be against him, so that recall will go through too. Then a third by next autumn, etc...

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[Jhon]

The main (claimed) reason for the Republican efforts to get the recall has been the budget deficit.

You need to remember significant number of those who signed those petitions were democrats. That said, the deficit was only an ancillary reason for the recall. The main reasons are that he lied about how bad the budget was to get re-elcted, nasty episodes of quid pro quo:

Wayne Johnson, president of the California Teachers Association, recounted a Feb. 14 meeting with the governor. "We were just sitting there talking and he just out of the blue said, 'You know, I really need a million dollars from you guys,'" Johnson said. "It was really very funny. There was this awkward silence."

He also lied about his plans to raise taxes. These were just SOME of the things he was proposing just DAYS after he was re-elected on a platform which promised no new taxes or spending cuts:

Taxing internet commerce, raising income tax to 11%, raising sales tax to over 9% which would push it to close to and even over 10% in some counties, and raising car registration 300% (Oh yeah, he snuck that one in already).

Again, I can't stress this enough, to say that the recall is because of the deficit is to completely misunderstand not only the budget, but how the voters were hoodwinked by lies and misdirection. To say "Getting 1 million signatures is no big deal for either of the two big parties. Should we have another recall next summer?" is to completely look over the fact that if it was *SO* easy, it would have been done some time over the last 100 or so years the mechinism has existed and is completely a red herring. This is the first time in California history this has happened.

This "evil democrats"/"evil republicans" rhetoric is getting us nowhere. Let it go.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[pmz]

People see them only having a spoiling effect -- voting third party has the same effect as staying home, as far as the results are concerned.

This is the problem--people don't see their vote counting as a voice. So, they make a weak choice and vote for the Republocrat or the Demolican running on the ballot.

Is this the future we want? Two insanely powerful groups of people more or less able to stay in power indefinitely? Are we so inherently weak that going with the "winning" team is the only choice left to us?

Americans used to be optimists setting an example to the rest of the world. What happened? Now we are so fat and lazy that only federalized health care (Democrats) or waging war on the world (Republicans) is the only way we will survive? We just sit back into our cushy sofa, watch CNN, and suck of the US Government propery milk bottle provided to each and every American each morning?

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[cens0r]

of course. That why I don't really like democracy. What we need is an enlightened despotism.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[Jeremi]

Is this the future we want? Two insanely powerful groups of people more or less able to stay in power indefinitely? Are we so inherently weak that going with the "winning" team is the only choice left to us?

At the moment, yes, we are that weak. That is not a moral failing on our part, it's simply an inevitable outcome of a winner-take-all electoral system.

Now we are so fat and lazy that only federalized health care (Democrats) or waging war on the world (Republicans) is the only way we will survive? We just sit back into our cushy sofa, watch CNN, and suck of the US Government propery milk bottle provided to each and every American each morning?

We aren't fat and lazy (well, not all of us anyway ;^)). As you observe, our two-party political system is failing us badly, and it needs to be changed. But in order to change the system, we need to get control of the system, and barring some miracle that almost certainly won't happen, third parties are not the means by which that change is going to come about. I'm a dues-paying member of the Green Party myself, and as much as I like the Greens, I'm not blind to how the system works. So that leaves us two choices -- change by ballot initiative (a possibility in California, but not nationwide), or change by means of electing change-friendly major-party candidates. Admittedly, change-friendly major party candidates are rare, almost by definition, but Howard Dean is one of them -- he's in favor of both Instant Runoff Voting and Public Campaign Financing -- two reforms that would each improve our level of Democracy drastically. He's also on the right side of many other issues, and is an intelligent, outspoken, and charismatic candidate to boot.

So if you want to bitch about how bad our political system is and play the rebel without actually changing anything, then maybe a third party candidate is the choice for you. If, on the other hand, you actually want to see some positive changes occur, Dean is your man in 2004.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[Yohahn]

The problem is that govenors and presidents don't really manage the legislature, more the other way around.

The president is supposed to put into force the laws that are passed by the legislature.

Govenors generally have more control, but mostly work on the same principles.

It's nice that getting undue credit works both ways, but it still dosen't really place blame in the right place.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[alizard]

You need to remember, the state's answer to the energy scam was to raise consumer rates to pay the bloated expenses over the next decade or two

At the time, only your friends at Enron knew that it was a scam.

Davis's problem was making sure his constituents had assured electric power. You know, that stuff that runs through wires that nobody can do business without?

The people like you who are whining about high taxes now are the people who would be screaming like buggered pigs if you were sitting in front of a computer idled by YET ANOTHER rolling blackout.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[Jhon]

"...your friends at Entron" "...people like you"

Geez, get over yourself, you leftest sheep. I live in CA and my company *WAS* effected by the rolling blackouts. You think the answer to that is to tax my employeer out of the state? Or to tax me out of the state? Get real and take off those rose colored glasses.

You've got no clue as to the history of the energy crisis in CA OR how California dealt with it. You just want to blame Enron, or people "whining" about high taxes.

Davis's problem was making sure his constituents had assured electric power. You know, that stuff that runs through wires that nobody can do business without?

Davis's problem was that he didn't pay attention to all the warning from various sources. Davis's problem was that he chose to bail out the near bankrupt power companies with BONDS rather than biting the bullet with the general fund. He's raiding the people and businesses of CA for decades rather than deal with an $8 billion shortfall for one year. Davis's problem was lying to the voter's of california about the depth of the deficit, his plans for dealing with it and his quid pro quo tactics.

Davis's problem is that he's not a leader, he's a CLIENT. A client of all those willing to pay his fee. You pay, you get what you want. That's Davis's problem.

Look for the truth. You'll find it even in leftest rags like the SACBEE.

I hate discussions with demagogs. Just talking REASON aganist one makes me feel like I'm that far on the OTHER side. I'm not. Because many people believe Davis is rancid butter for CA doesn't make them right wing wackos. My friends at Enron indeed.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[Pxtl]

Whoa, was the IRV comment your sig, or part of the comment? Its disappeared in the response screen, but its very pertinent.

I like that system. I'd looked into approval voting (my fave for sheer simplicity) but IRV is nice - easy for voters to understand prioritizing, but the analysis system might offend some with its complexity - also make counting more difficult. Still, its an interestingly powerful system.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[Ironica]

You need to remember, the state's answer to the energy scam was to raise consumer rates to pay the bloated expenses over the next decade or two. This is on top of a nearly 10% state sales tax and over 10% state income tax -- and NOT including the proposed income tax for county and city. How much can a state take away from it's citizins?

- We've managed to reduce our electricity bill by 1/3 over the past year. Rates haven't gone up a whole lot if we can do that just by turning off our computers during the day and while we sleep. Oh, yeah, and that's in Edison territory (LADWP didn't have any rolling blackouts or rate hikes... but then again, they're a *non-profit* government agency).

- State sales tax is nowhere near 10%. In Los Angeles County it's 8.25% and I think ours is the highest. At least 1.5% of that is county tax. State sales tax is 6.something percent. That's closer to 5% than 10%.

- If state income tax was 10%, I would have owed another $6370.70 last year when I sold a house. I paid 7.77% in the highest possible tax bracket.

- The state of California has, in the last several decades, taken many things from its citizens. I would include a decent public education, the possibility of staying off the street if you really tried, mental institutions for those who can't care for themselves and have no family, and a whole lot of other things. In 1978, California had among the very best public educational systems in the country. After 25 years of proposition 13, we have a slightly better system than Mississippi. I went to public school in California from 1978-1991, and by high school graduation I felt like I was in an Indiana Jones movie... the system was collapsing behind me as I raced out.

Guess what? Society costs money. You don't want to pay, go live on an island all alone somewhere. Us Californians don't pay nearly enough to drive, or to own property, and so we raise sales taxes so that we can have frivolities like public transit. New homeowners are paying 5 times the property taxes of their next-door neighbors, and it's still not enough to pay the bills. Gas taxes cover less than 2/3rds of our road maintenance and building expenses and the gulf grows as the tax stagnates (as a specific tax, it doesn't automatically adjust for inflation) and fuel efficiency gets better. If people weren't such greedy bastards, we could all just pay "our fair share" of what we need (btw, *everyone* needs public education, because without it, there's a whole bunch of kids who have no choice but to steal *your* stuff to get by). But there's this thing that economists call the "Free Rider Problem." I hope the technical jargon doesn't scare you, but all it means is, if people can get something for nothing, they will. Taxes are the only way we've come up with to fix that. If you actually have a better idea, that doesn't turn the poor and working class into slaves for us to stand on the backs of, let's hear it.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[Ironica]

Businesses don't locate their plant facilities as a matter of social conscience. Businesses locate their plant facilities to make an after-tax rate of return for their shareholders. And taxes do matter. They matter a lot. California and Arizona both prove that point.

So, let me get this straight: It's perfectly fine that my mom is paying only 0.08% of the market value of her home in annual property taxes, and that millions of other homeowners are paying similar rates, because it "brings business into the state."

Well, what about the big-box retail revolution? Do you know what that's about? I do. It so happens that, now that jurisdictions cannot count on any inflation-adjusted revenue from residential property, they all fight over big retail outfits that will bring in tons of sales taxes. *Fight* over them, because there's not enough of them to go around. They offer them huge concessions *on top of* the tax breaks they already get. The cities end up cutting off their noses to spite their face, paying huge amounts of non-monetary costs in increased traffic, pollution, noise, and safety issues, so that they can get enough sales taxes to pay for their schools. Oh, guess what? Those stores aren't the ones paying the sales tax. The consumers are.

It doesn't matter how much business you bring into a place if it doesn't pay its way. In case you haven't noticed, employment is down, it's getting lower, and that's happening EVERYWHERE no matter what the tax laws are. The aerospace industry packed up and moved to Texas regardless of Proposition 13. The proposition has destroyed our social infrastructure, and I don't need a newspaper to tell me that... I've *experienced* it growing up in California.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[Jhon]

So, let me get this straight: It's perfectly fine that my mom is paying only 0.08% of the market value of her home in annual property taxes, and that millions of other homeowners are paying similar rates, because it "brings business into the state."

Did you read the artcile I cited? Or just the part where I indicated one of the big benefits of Prop 13? I don't disagree that the rate of property tax increases are too low -- however, why did this provision of Prop 13 pass? Because property values in CA were (and still are) climbing at a rate where home buyers wouldn't be able to afford their yearly property tax 5-10 years after buying their house. Try reading the article I cited.

Well, what about the big-box retail revolution? Do you know what that's about? I do. It so happens that, now that jurisdictions cannot count on any inflation-adjusted revenue from residential property, they all fight over big retail outfits that will bring in tons of sales taxes. *Fight* over them, because there's not enough of them to go around. They offer them huge concessions *on top of* the tax breaks they already get. The cities end up cutting off their noses to spite their face, paying huge amounts of non-monetary costs in increased traffic, pollution, noise, and safety issues, so that they can get enough sales taxes to pay for their schools. Oh, guess what? Those stores aren't the ones paying the sales tax. The consumers are.

How about some sources? I'm not buying it. If what you suggest is true, businesses wouldn't be leaving california in droves and california wouldn't be listed as one of the WORST 'business friendly' states in the union. Thank god for mississippi.

It doesn't matter how much business you bring into a place if it doesn't pay its way. In case you haven't noticed, employment is down, it's getting lower, and that's happening EVERYWHERE no matter what the tax laws are. The aerospace industry packed up and moved to Texas regardless of Proposition 13. The proposition has destroyed our social infrastructure, and I don't need a newspaper to tell me that... I've *experienced* it growing up in California.

It's too bad your "experience" doesn't mirror statistics.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[Jhon]

- State sales tax is nowhere near 10%. In Los Angeles County it's 8.25% and I think ours is the highest. At least 1.5% of that is county tax. State sales tax is 6.something percent. That's closer to 5% than 10%.

The sales tax in CA is, and has been for some time, 7.25%.In LA it's 8.25%. Davis wanted to raise this to 8.25% early on after he was elected promising not to raise taxes. This would bring LA up to 9.25%. All these are are alot closer to 10% than, as you try to minimize as 5%.

- If state income tax was 10%, I would have owed another $6370.70 last year when I sold a house. I paid 7.77% in the highest possible tax bracket.

The highest tax rate in california as of 01/01/2003 is 9.6%. Davis was talking, very soon after the election of raising that to 11%. BTW, last year, the year you claim the highest tax was 7.77%, is in fact 9.3%. You better have your accountant look over your income tax for last year -- I think you're screwed.

Added to this, if the proposed assembly bill AB1690 gets passed, you can add an additional income tax to your county and city.

I'm of the opinion that you are a demagog and no amount of reason or source material or logic is going to change your opinion. Your very language suggests it. "If people weren't such greedy bastards, we could all just pay "our fair share" of what we need" It's not greedy to want to keep at least 50% of the money I earn. It's not greedy to believe that california's problem isn't that we don't spend enough on education -- we spend more now than ever before, but we're still rated 49 (thank god for mississippi) -- the problem, at least to me, is obviously one of admistration and accountability.

I'm prepared to write you off as uninformed. 7.77% as the highest income tax in CA? 6% income tax? And you say you LIVE in CA? How can you not notice?

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[Ironica]

The highest tax rate in california as o per student than we did in the 70's and even early 80's. I'll get the exact numbers later if I have the time. We can double the amount we spend, and if we have triple the students, our education will still go downhill.

-- the problem, at least to me, is obviously one of admistration and accountability.

So are you running for governor, since it's such an easy job? Since the solutions are so obvious? Since people are just not administrating things properly, and are not being held accountable, and that's all the problem is? You tell me what you've read in all those publicly-available reports that, for accountability purposes, the state government publishes on everything they do, and what they've so clearly omitted or screwed up.

It's easy to be an armchair official. Spend a day or two inside a government agency and see how clear-cut this all is.
--
"[T]he working stiffs...They make $75-100k a year. That's not much to live on." - Jack Valenti on who piracy hurts most f 01/01/2003 is 9.6%. Davis was talking, very soon after the election of raising that to 11%. BTW, last year, the year you claim the highest tax was 7.77%, is in fact 9.3%. You better have your accountant look over your income tax for last year -- I think you're screwed.

No, actually, I'm not. I paid 7.77% of my taxable income in state taxes. Do you know how tax brackets work? There's a portion that I paid 9.6% on, and a portion I paid less than that, and a portion I didn't pay on at all. So I paid 7.77%. That's what it comes out to. No one is paying "almost 10%" of their taxable income in state taxes. Anyone who is paying 9.6% of any of their income is still getting the same amount tax-free as everyone else, and a good chunk at less than 9.6%. As your income approaches infinity, the percentage you pay in taxes approaches, but never reaches, 9.6%. As a practical matter, for 95% of the population, it will stay below 8%.

It's not greedy to want to keep at least 50% of the money I earn.

And you don't? Wait, 90% > 50% in my world. Oh, yeah, fed taxes. Make that 70% > 50%.

It's not greedy to believe that california's problem isn't that we don't spend enough on education -- we spend more now than ever before, but we're still rated 49 (thank god for mississippi)

We spend, in inflation-adjusted dollars, far, far less per student than we did in the 70's and even early 80's. I'll get the exact numbers later if I have the time. We can double the amount we spend, and if we have triple the students, our education will still go downhill.

-- the problem, at least to me, is obviously one of admistration and accountability.

So are you running for governor, since it's such an easy job? Since the solutions are so obvious? Since people are just not administrating things properly, and are not being held accountable, and that's all the problem is? You tell me what you've read in all those publicly-available reports that, for accountability purposes, the state government publishes on everything they do, and what they've so clearly omitted or screwed up.

It's easy to be an armchair official. Spend a day or two inside a government agency and see how clear-cut this all is.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[Jhon]

>>It's not greedy to want to keep at least 50% of the money I earn.

And you don't? Wait, 90% > 50% in my world. Oh, yeah, fed taxes. Make that 70% > 50%.

Yeah. I don't. Last year, after all taxes were considered -- state and federal income tax, SSI, unemployment ins, etc, after sales tax, after the tax on my phone, the tax on my car, the tax on my property, the tax on my electric bill, the tax on my water bill, the tax on my cable bill, tax on my gas (home), tax on my gas (car), etc etc etc, I put out over 53%. And I itemize EVERYTHING.

So are you running for governor, since it's such an easy job?

Yeah, thats right. If my mechanic can't fix my car, I should do it huh? He keeps charging me and charging me so I should either pay more or do it myself? There's a third option here. Fire the bum and take it to a NEW mechanic.

It's easy to be an armchair official. Spend a day or two inside a government agency and see how clear-cut this all is.

It's easy to say "it's complicated" and just toss more money at problems. The answer to EVERY problem this state has is NOT to spend more on it. Yet this is what happenes.

As far as provding sources, I've provided quite a few in previous posts. Take some personal responsibility and LOOK FOR YOURSELF. You've provided NOTHING to back up any claim you've made. Here's another example of an outragous claim made by you:

In case you haven't noticed, employment is down, it's getting lower, and that's happening EVERYWHERE no matter what the tax laws are.

Yet a simple google news search yields indications that it's NOT everywhere -- and many cities and states are improving. Why not check where they are listed on the "business friendly" states? PA, OH, TX, IL are among many of the states doing better. Many cities are seeing the unemployment rate, which had been rising, starting to stablize and should hopefully drop in the near future.

And here's another outragous claim of yours with no back up material:

We spend, in inflation-adjusted dollars, far, far less per student than we did in the 70's and even early 80's. I'll get the exact numbers later if I have the time. We can double the amount we spend, and if we have triple the students, our education will still go downhill.

Again, sources? I've not seen anything that makes that claim, yet I've seen this which appears to contradict you. From the article:

In inflation-adjusted dollars, per-pupil spending in California was 60 percent higher in 1994-95 than in 1969-70

And this much more recent article also appears to contradict your claims. From the article:

In California, a new study by the Pacific Research Institute found that the state increased education spending by 29 percent over the past 10 years (in inflation-adjusted terms) , yet school children in the state rank near the bottom of performance.

The fact is we spend over $200,000 per class room on average -- subtract the average teacher's salary of about $50k and you have $150k in overhead. There's a problem there. Thats around $7000-$8000 per student in public school while private schools in CA average around $3500/student and do a far better job. We were spending too much in the 70's without getting a justified return. It's far worse now.

I'm satisfied. Your a demagog. And ill-informed. And lazy. And you're willing to pay what I consider to be unreasonable taxes -- so long as no single tax is "too much" as to notice it. Those nibbles all add up.

A total maximum of a 50% tax burden is not unreasonable. Talks of a 50% federal bracket ALONE scare the bejeezus out of me.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[alset_tech]

Come on, now - read a little more before you post. When we vote we will have ballots that let us vote Davis in or out, but regardless of our prefernce we ALL get to name a successor. Dan

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[HappyDrgn]

Gov. Davis is removed, the Lt. Governor should take his place and an election should be held for Lt. Governor

The problems began with the Lt Governor taking office (Gumby Davis). What people dont seem to realize is that a Lt Governor is no more qualified to run California than a soda can!

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[Anonymous Coward]

Darryl Issa (and his puppet-master Karl Rove) have certainly abused California's constitution to force this recall...

How, precisely, is following a procedure outlined in the state constitution to remove an officeholder abuse?

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[Illbay]

"Insightful"? No, ignorant.

This argument--that the recall is "unfair"--is just as inane as the insistence by partisan Democrats that Bill Clinton's impeachment as "an attempt to overturn the election."

In all cases, election, recall or impeachment/removal from office, the process is mandated by the state or federal constitution. To grouse about the latter two, because you are too ignorant to understand that, is far from being "insightful."

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[King Shulgi]

What *should* happen is that the Governor should not have to have a higher bar to reach than the other candidates.

Instead, whoever gains the highest plurality of votes in the election should become Governor. At the moment, Gray Davis must get greater than 50% of the votes or he cannot become Governor.

Since some number, maybe 25% of the electorate, will vote for Governor Davis, this means that there will only be 75% left to go around. And that means that whoever is elected will not have a clear mandate. Instead, he or she will have a clear constituency.

Electoral politics is a lot like a High School dance. You have to dance with the one that brought you. If the new governor is elected by only 20% of the electorate, then the new governor will listen to that 20%. While it is not assured, the incentives certainly exist for some vastly unpopular programs to emerge.

If the existing governor had his bar lowered to be the greatest plurality and then all candidates held a run-off of the top two candidates after the initial election, it would guarantee that the person who took office was in fact the person who represented the will of the people.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, the recall is fair. Davis was elected by the people, and is being held accountable by the people in a recall election, as provided for in the California constitution. The recall election was placed on the ballot by pixies, it was placed there by the signatures of over 1,000,000 California voters.

Perhaps you don't live in California, since you seem confused about what is actually on the recall ballot when you go on about 60% Vs. 40%.
There are two questions on the ballot. Question 1 is "Should Gray Davis be recalled?" If the majority of those voting say "Yes" to this question, then it is perfectly legit, a *real majority* of those voting have chosen to expel him from office.

The second question is "If Gray Davis is recalled, who shall replace him as governor?"
Nothing unfair here: if he failed to win a majority of votes to stay in office, he's out and of course, ineligible to be in the "Who shall replace him" section. Everyone - even those who vote to keep him in office on question 1 - can make a choice here.

Does the fact that the winner may become so with only a plurality make this unfair? That's a question possibly open to debate, but it's the way the California constitution frames it. The rationale was probably that a recall is an extreme event, and if the governor should be recalled, the successor is best chosen by the political equivalent of sudden-death overtime.

If election by a plurality is unfair to anyone, it's not unfair to Gray Davis. If he loses question one, then he's out of the picture. How his successor is chosen can be neither fair nor unfair to him. It could, however, be unfair to people who did not vote for the winner. Let's say we have a case where the winner has 35% of the vote, and the next runner-up has 25%, and all the others fall off sharply after that. We will have a governor coming into office who had the support of only 35% of those who turned out to vote. Changing this would require amending the California constitution, but iw could be something worth talking about. It may be less than fair to the other 65% who did not vote for the winning candidate.

Perhaps a runoff election between the top two finishers would be desirable, although that raises the question of who would be governor in the meantime, since the law calls for the governor's immediate removal from office if s/he loses the recall election. The lieutenant governor could, in theory, fill the office until a winner is chosen. However, in this case, the sitting lieutenant governor is also a leading candidate to replace the governor in the event of recall, so that would be problematic in that it could give one candidate the effective weight of incumbency whilst not being an actual incumbent.
That consideration is probably why the California constitution chose to go with a plurality for choosing the replacement governor. It may not be perfect, but it may be the best alternative.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[Lord of the Wazz]

I suppose this is probably off-topic, but it's something I've wondered about for a while. As a Brit, it seems that a lot of vocal Americans think that it's some kind of capital crime to be left-wing. I can't see any reason (other than hedonism) why people would be against fundamental necessities such as free healthcare and the welfare state.

Does this anti-left mentality come from the fact that the US spent 50 years locked in a power struggle with the Commies? Or is it just that all far too many people care about is the Almighty Buck?

This isn't intended as a troll so apologies if I've offended anyone but it's one of these things that just confuses the hell out of me.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[Jhon]

Very good question.

It's not that American's think it's a "capital crime" to be left-wing -- it goes both way for both extremes. Too far left or too far right and you can end up marked as -- yup, you guessed it. An extremist. If you're really interested, there's tons of information available on the web that show the leftests pounding the "right" and their "vast right-wing conspiracy" and the right pounding the lefts "tax and spend".

My problem is mostly with people who are so far in one direction or another they blindly follow their political dogma.

America is, in my opinion, somewhere in the middle of all that but the demagogs get all the press. The problem is if you're a centrist and you argue an issue against an extremist, you end up labeled an extremist on the OTHER end in an attempt to marginalize your argument. Basic attack the person. "You people this" or "You and your commie friends" or "You and your friends at Enron" (from this thread) are a few examples.

I beleive Americans want the oportunities a free market and capitolism provides while providing basic needs for those who either cant or for some reason unable to provide for themselves. The problems arrise in the impletmentation. Waste, fraud, apathy and beurocratic overhead drive up the costs. If one side is in power too long, all the problems associated with it (left==spending beyond tax base, right==business over public wellfare (minor examples)). Then the call comes for REFORM! It's cyclic.

By the way, there is no such thing as "free health care". It costs money and it costs A LOT. I'm I saying that public healthcare not be provided to those that cant afford it? No. But you cant slice a pie in to portions that add up to 130% before you create economic ruin as is happening in CA.

Re:Do you think the recall is fair?

[Lord of the Wazz]

By the way, there is no such thing as "free health care". It costs money and it costs A LOT.

Sorry you're right. What I meant was health care that is free at the point of delivery. Obviously this requires a huge amount of money, but I think that it is definitely possible to do it well. In the UK there is a constant putting down of our National Health Service for various reasons, almost all stemming from the fact that it is chronically under-funded.

However, if you look at countries such as Sweden, where there are high taxes (upwards of 50% in the highest bracket), there is far more money to provide not only a decent health service (average female life expectancy of 81 years compared to the USA's 79 years for white women down to 75 years for black women), but also other key public services such as education (Sweden has virtually 100% literacy compared to the USA's 85%).

In case you were wondering where all these statistics came from I found them all on my Encyclopaedia Britannica DVD - the only good thing to come from the fact that I once bought a PC from Tiny when I was young and foolish :)

questions about the campaign.

[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?

My other issue is your stance on Health Care. The fine State of CA has many illegal immigrants on its soil, (in fact it depends on those people for many "lowly" jobs IIRC). Are you planning on REAL citizens covering the insurance costs for these illegal immigrants and their children? Don't you see this as a large enough burden on the population as it is?

Re:questions about the campaign.

[kevin lyda]

since california depends on illegal immigrants for it's "lowly" jobs - many of which are high risk - do you instead support high quality health care for any of those immigrants who end up in hospital and paying for that by FINING THEIR EMPLOYERS?

Re:questions about the campaign.

[Anonymous Coward]

I personally feel that those people should have no claim to any sort of compensation for injury, death, etc. They are not legal workers, they are not legal immigrants, thus they have no rights here whatsoever (as far as I am concerned).

While the employers should be fined for hiring illegal immigrants, I don't think that those people should be supported here.

Please return them to their country of origin for medical care/treatment.

Re:questions about the campaign.

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:questions about the campaign.

[Schnapple]

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?

Perhaps the goal is not so much to actually become governor but rather to be the sacrifice. For example, we've yet to have a female president. Ergo, the odds of the first female candidate to win the presidency are pretty slim. And therefore the first woman to become her party's candidate must surely realize she's going to lose - and yet women try to become candidates (Elizabeth Dole, probably Hillary Clinton) because they realize while they won't win, at least the next woman in theory has an easier chance. Of course by this logic most parties won't put a female candidate forward since they don't want to lose, ever. Perhaps she's taking the stance of running on controversial issues at a young age as a patsy?

Re:questions about the campaign.

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? Don't draw from any social programs? Who pays for their medical care? Who pays when they end up in the emergency room? Who pays all the cops that do arrest the ones that eventually get tossed out? Who pays for the INS? Who pays for all the beauracracy involved in handling the complaints of the ranchers on the border who have their land trespassed on all the time?

As for them paying taxes, how much tax do you think they could possibly pay? They don't earn very much, and so can't pay very much. Most probably don't work on the books.

Re:questions about the campaign.

[Anonymous Coward]

It is this kind of small minded opinion that always amazes me - especially on /. where the average IQ is probably higher than the tabloid reading masses.
Surely you can see that the whole "blaming the imigrants" thing is nothing but spin - and fundamentally not that different to the anti-semitism happening in Nazi Germany pre WW2.
Immigrants come to rich countries for a reason - a better quality of life. It is surely human nature to better ourselves as individuals and groups - this is how we have achieved so much as a species. We have to accept that we are living in a capitalist world - and as capitalism dictates that money is proportional to quality of life then people in poorer countries will naturally want to migrate to richer ones. This is not because they are evil, lazy or stupid, but simply the human desire to better ones self.
One thing that is never mentioned by any politician in western governments is the cause of dissatisfaction that causes illigal immigration. It is naive to assume that becoming an illegal immigrant is a "easy option", but as long as the richest countries keep exploiting the poorest countries (and hence keep the poor countries poor) there will be individuals who refuse to live the life they are born to.
The craziest thing of all to me is that the western world now insists on beaming its sanitised and idealised version of western life into the poorer countries via television channels - simply highlighting what they haven't got.
</soapbox>

Re:questions about the campaign.

[spoonyfork]

Based on your comment, I doubt that you have seen the total cost of uninsured health care especially in a state like California. Here in Michigan it is crippling. In this case they do take something from the rest of population.

Your point is valid, though. If they were all to be declared "legal" overnight, this issue would not go away.

Re:questions about the campaign.

[kevin lyda]

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.

Re:questions about the campaign.

[Anonymous Coward]

sorry, while I have extreme sympathy for these people, I have no desire to pay for ANY of their treatment out of my already meager paychecks.

Re:questions about the campaign.

[jgalun]

For example, we've yet to have a female president. Ergo, the odds of the first female candidate to win the presidency are pretty slim.

You're missing a step here. Your logic appears to be "No woman has won, therefore the first one to run won't win either." That's pretty faulty logic.

Re:questions about the campaign.

[geekoid]

"They don't draw on any social programs (want to stay under the radar)"

a very misleading and ignorant statement.

There children draw heavily on the social benefits. They often need to learn english, they get welfare, there lack of prenatile health means more of them need medical services or disability service, ETC . . ..

Now, technically your right, because the children born here are not illegal immigrants, but in reality the two issue are inserperables.

"They aren't avoiding prperty tax (they own no prperty)"

I fail to see any logic there whats so ever. are you saying that property owners avoid paying property taxes? I could run with it and say there children are a burdon on the school system because they don't pay property taxes. However, if the rent an apartment, part of that rent is a property tax the owner of the property will pay.

"Also, they stay as well behaved as possible (if they get arrested they get tossed out)"
uh-huh. that explains the low crime rate in poor neighborhoods. Not that they are the cause of it, just that your logic is unsound a specious at best.

Re:questions about the campaign.

[elmegil]

What are you babbling about? She's hardly the only female candidate on the ballot. Some of them have some decent credentials even.

Re:questions about the campaign.

[skidv]

I'm afraid I disagree. While illegal immigrants may avoid drawing on estabilished social programs, many social programs are designed solely for the benefit of illegal immigrants. There are many programs that are designed to provide health, legal and social care. Additionally, illegal immigrants create special problems for law enforcement that require additional resources. Finally, since illegal immigrants have few established rights, they often are locked into situations which are breeding grounds for crime, poverty and abuse.

All of these issues reduce resources from the rest of the population.

Re:questions about the campaign.

[On Lawn]

legalization of marijuana and gay marriages

As I recall both of these issues have been settled by popular referendum. I can't get on her site to see what her position is, but hopefully it isn't against what the people have voted for.

Re:questions about the campaign.

[stdcallsign]

As for them paying taxes, how much tax do you think they could possibly pay? They don't earn very much, and so can't pay very much. Most probably don't work on the books.

True. Most are agriculteral workers who get paid are not subject to FICA(they have no citizenship) so they generally have no tax withheld by the farmers that pay them.

However, the reason groceries prices are as low as they are is the low cost of labor when harvesting. If ag employers they had to pay minimum wage and pay taxes on that, produce may cost 2-3x what it does now.

Re:questions about the campaign.

[Anonymous Coward]

Agree with previous writer, but would like to add an important fact here... they do the jobs that "real" citizens don't want to do, because the pay is way too low. To all the "out with the immigrants" I would like to ask this... Would you like to pay a substantial increase in price for groceries etc, just to get "real" citizens to take those jobs?

Re:questions about the campaign.

[Anonymous Coward]

You are absolutely full of shit. Every single major survey and study of any note whatsoever indicates what an enormous drain the illegals are on the California economy. Every statement you made is provably false with even basic and readily available facts and figures.

You are living in an ideological dreamword of your own construction. Wake the fuck up, you stupid, pathetic sack.

Re:questions about the campaign.

[jasondlee]

Except jobs.

jason

Re:questions about the campaign.

[bourne]

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.

Re:questions about the campaign.

[h0mer]

You are way off base on this. First of all, yes they most likely pay sales tax. However, do you think illegal immigrants get a nice paycheck issued by ADC with the proper deductions? Illegal immigrants get paid with cash, especially the migrant landscaping/construction jobs.

Do you honestly think they don't draw on any social programs? What do you call driving on public roads? If I were a betting man, I would wager that you're not from California yourself. Any Californians care to comment on this issue?

Finally, your point about getting arrested = thrown out is laughable. Bill O'Reilly recently did a segment on his radio show about that. Did you know multiple states have laws that PREVENT law enforcement from contacting INS if they think that someone in custody is here illegally?

Come on now, you can't say that illegal immigrants are good for the country. Doesn't anyone realize that we need LESS people in this country? Illegal immigration does not help that, at all.

Re:questions about the campaign.

[Otter]

My other issue is your stance on Health Care. The fine State of CA has many illegal immigrants on its soil, (in fact it depends on those people for many "lowly" jobs IIRC). Are you planning on REAL citizens covering the insurance costs for these illegal immigrants and their children? Don't you see this as a large enough burden on the population as it is?

That question brings back memories of an earlier round of California voter referendums. There was Proposition 187, which would have banned governmental benefits, including health care, to illegal aliens. In the same election there was Proposition 194 (I think), which would have mandated Canadian-style health care.

Obviously, single-payer health care would be completely unworkable if it applied to illegal aliens in California. So the measure specifically excluded them. For centrist voters like me, there was no conflict -- we voted down both. But the leftists who screamed the loudest about the racism and genocide embodied in 187 cheerfully endorsed the health care reform plan. In fact, they all had bumber stickers reading "No on 187! Yes on (whatever the other was)!" What that means besides that they have a complete disregard for the most basic facts, I'm not sure.

Re:questions about the campaign.

[KReilly]

Actually, I live in Texas, and we have a large group of hispanics entering through us. Generally, they do not pay federal taxes because they are normally paid under the table. They do pay sales tax, but often use less money to do this as they send alot home to their families. And they often are not super well behaved because if they get arrested or do something illegal they are not liable, they will simply go back to their country and cross over again. I site an example where they drive uninsured cars with no liscense. We were hit by one lady who had never driven a car before. It totalled our suburban, and we were told by the insurance company we could not collect because there was nothing to collect. I personally am not against illegal immigrants when our country is in very properous times, but your facts are not nearly representative of the whole group.

Re:questions about the campaign.

[arnie_apesacrappin]

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.

Re:questions about the campaign.

[Anonymous Coward]

So I guess you're a native American?

Re:questions about the campaign.

[jdreed1024]

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.

Re:questions about the campaign.

[gsfprez]

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 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" 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

Re:questions about the campaign.

[Wakko Warner]

Except jobs.

You have a great desire to pick vegetables for 80 hours a week at $3.50 an hour?

Go do it, then. What real jobs to illegal immigrants "take" from us?

- A.P.

Re:questions about the campaign.

[Anonymous Coward]

a very misleading and ignorant statement.

There children draw heavily on the social benefits. They often need to learn english,

Now, technically your right,

Before you blast immigrants ability to use English make sure you can pass a 6th grade spelling quiz. kthxbye.

Re:questions about the campaign.

[Phantasmo]

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

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?

Re:questions about the campaign.

[Anonymous Coward]

$5 says your a mexican.

That or you are a stupid, stupid, US Citizen. You obviously are completely ignorant of the financial burdons these "harmless" law breakers inflict upon the entire health care industry. Do you have any idea how many MILLIONS and MILLIONS of dollars of tax payer money is doled out to hospitals to keep them from going under? All because these criminals don't go for medical help until they are almost dead, and then they never bother to pay for it! They drive wages down so low for certain jobs, no US citizen can afford to do them. So they pay sales tax? Maybe on food and clothing (them mexicans LOVE spendy boots, cowboy hats and belt buckles). Yet you have no clue on how much money they wire OUT of the USA to be spent ELSEWHERE. They bankrupt schools because they have to teach them in Spanish (ESL is a mockery) and pay for their lunches and school supplies. Well behaved? How is breaking laws well behaved? They drive around with no insurance, don't pay their tickets, contribute to the highlest levels of Hit-and-Run accidents, and so on. Their "cheap labor" is very costly. In order for greedy corporations to pay sub-standard wages to an endless stream of mexicans (mainly), we're shelling out tax dollars to pay for the resources used by these line jumping law breakers. I can't believe you got an "insightful" score when you are so completely IGNORANT.

Re:questions about the campaign.

[Schnapple]

You're missing a step here. Your logic appears to be "No woman has won, therefore the first one to run won't win either." That's pretty faulty logic.

Actually I meant to get across that "No woman has won, therefore the first one to run probably won't win" - notice how in 43 presidents they've almost all been white male protestants. If voters were condusive to change we'd have more variety.

And I think someone like Elizabeth Dole would have an easier time winning the presidency than the nomination for the presidency. It's not that I'm saying women have never run for president - they do all the time - they've just never had the nomination of a major party.

But as for female govenors, there's been plenty of those - even one that was pregneant. I'm saying (by way of a convoluted analogy) that enough people run for political office without sqeaky clean campaign issues (i.e., gay marriages and drug legalization) and these issues won't become death knells - but until they are they'll continue to be and anyone who runs under them is really just taking one for the team.

Re:questions about the campaign.

[litesgod]

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.

Re:questions about the campaign.

[prichardson]

Actually, the only people in the world who aren't immagrants would be people who live in a certain part of Africa if you really want get pissy. If a Native American ever calls you an immigrant tell them tht you have as much a right to be here as they do because their people just marched in and took over 42,000 years ago.

Re:questions about the campaign.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, my ancestors came from somewhere other than North America. As did yours and everyone else's including those of the Native Americans. In fact, everyone in the world's ancestors came from somewhere other than the place they now call home.

In other words, every nation is a "nation of immigrants" and this meaningless slogan is useless as a basis for public policy.

To redefine the world's boundaries according to ancestral wanderings would be a foolish and impossible task.

Re:questions about the campaign.

[Anonymous Coward]

Prior to the disastrous immigration act of 1965, there was very little immigration.

In fact, between 1925 and 1965, there was even a period of net emigration out of the United States.

Presumably, during this time, our grass was being cut, our meat was being packed, our children were being watched and our houses were being cleaned.

Also, during that time, we invented computers, had a healthy labor movement, initiated the space program that put men on the moon, made great strides in civil rights and environmental legislation, built the largest economy the world has ever seen, and successfully prosecuted WWII against two great powers on two fronts simultaneously.

The idea that somehow we suddenly can't run a country without an endless supply of foreigners is absurd.

A country should do its own work.

Here's the real problem: In the early 60s, meatpackers in Omaha, Nebraska were paid about $6.00/hr. That's about $34.00/hr in today's money.

Our guess is that you could find Americans to work as meat-packers at $34.00/hr. Instead, those jobs today pay less than $10.00 and are done mostly by immigrant and illegal labor.

Re:questions about the campaign.

[kidlinux]

Someone has to buy food and clothing for that kid. More money to the US economy.

Re:questions about the campaign.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think illegal immegrants should get healthcare, but I as a united states citizen I don't even have healthcare coverage!

I'm all for handing out coverage to people who need it but how about making sure the actually born and raised citizens get some of that healthcare goodness too?

Re:questions about the campaign.

[rossjudson]

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?

Re:questions about the campaign.

[richardellisjr]

You don't need a social security number to pay taxes. One of my friends was illegal here in Texas and was using a made up SSN. The IRS found him and gave him a Tax ID so he could pay taxes. The IRS doesn't care one bit if someone is here illegally or legally, they just want to get paid.

Re:questions about the campaign.

[homer_ca]

Like it or not, you do support them. Every time you buy CA grown vegetables, eat out in a restaurant, or patronize one of the countless other businesses that relies on cheap labor from illegal immigrants, you're giving them a job. It's one of those dirty secrets they'd rather sweep under the rug, but all those whitebread country club Republicans love cheap immigrant labor. Jail a few employers and get rid of the jobs, and the "problem" would be gone.

Re:questions about the campaign.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Illegal immagrants take NOTHIING from the rest of the population."

You couldn't be more wrong.

The wages set for any given job is directly related to the available supply of workers.

This is how web monkeys were at one day making six figures and now well...you know. The success of those initial workers drew an enormous number of followers. Since the economic downturn the sector was left with a glut of workers. This is exactly why their salaries have dropped and will never return to previous levels.

Manual labor is the same way. A flood of illegal immigrant workers would have the potential to drive down working wages to the point where manual jobs are no longer a viable way of making a living.

Did a flood of workers drive down wages or are immigrants just manning these low paying positions that no one else wants? I would argue that without an excess of immigrant workforce the pay for manual labor would have to go up to attract workers.

There are a limited amount of resources in the world. Without a lower class population it's not possible to have an upper class. How many people out there (esp. management) belive that they really earned the money they make. More times than not high paying saleries are sustained by underpaying those below them. This I suspect is why illegal immigration is one of those problems that are not aggressively taken care of.

Re:questions about the campaign.

[ink]

You can buy a SSN, complete with card and everything in downtown Santa Ana. They don't even hide it at all. By the time it's found out false, they can have another one -- but the false cards are often legitimate otherwise, so it's difficult to tell (and the employers, ahem, don't check very hard). Some of my illegal friends would get picked up on a Thursday, and be back before work on Monday; it's just part of life.

The truth is this: California WANTS illegal immagrants there so that they can have farm workers, people to clean up hotels, and (most importantly) a scapegoat for all the problems that exist in the state. It's WAY too easy to "illegally" get into California and work there for it to be a simple mistake. If they wanted to get rid of the "problem", then they'd start throwing employers in jail for hiring illegal workers. But they don't do that, and the fact that they don't is quite telling. The often white, republican farmers, wouldn't want their labor force to be depleted -- and to be fair, most every illegal immagrant would rather be doing that than living in northern Mexico.

I left California in 1995; after being born and raised there. I miss it at times, but not at the moment... Proposition 187 was supposed to "fix" all of this; it was passed right as I left the state, but it looks as though it didn't do much.

Oh, and my current state's budget was balanced this year.

Re:questions about the campaign.

[MacBrave]

I live in a midwestern city of about 16,000 people, of which approx. 10-15% are Hispanic immigrants. A couple of years ago the INS performed an 'audit' of several of the local factories and discovered that surprise! the same SSN was being used by multiple workers. Sometimes as many as 10 people were using the same SSN.
I think a number of these immigrants were deported, only to probably show up back in town a few months later......

Re:questions about the campaign.

[Master Controll Prog]

perhaps you should get better at giving blowjobs. then you would get paid more for it.

Re:questions about the campaign.

[Overly Critical Guy]

They are the worst thing to happen to the US economy.

They don't pay taxes. They get social programs from lefty policies, meaning we're paying for people who aren't even citizens here. They commit crimes (check crime statistics sometime). Worst of all, they take jobs away from LEGAL CITIZENS.

Re:questions about the campaign.

[Anonymous Coward]

because its not politically correct to do so, if we started going after the employers someone would get up and call everyone 'racist' just like always when dealing with any type of minority issues. I'm from california and I don't think alot of people know just whats going on here, or maybe because it isn't thier state they have the privlidge to speak with thier heart and not thier brain.

Re:questions about the campaign.

[Patik]

Illegal immagrants take NOTHIING from the rest of the population.

Jobs.

Re:questions about the campaign.

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh stop whining like a stupid bitch.

It is the law motherfucker, either change it or punish them all ( that goes for illegals as well as people employing them)

Re:questions about the campaign.

[harrkev]

Immigrants come to rich countries for a reason - a better quality of life.

True. But I, as an American who pays taxes, don't OWE immigrants anything. If American ows me anything, it is only because I pay my taxes and expect something in return.

but as long as the richest countries keep exploiting the poorest countries (and hence keep the poor countries poor) there will be individuals who refuse to live the life they are born to.

Isn't this what NAFTA was supposed to help fix?

Re:questions about the campaign.

[Anonymous Coward]

I would rather die "with a buller in my stomach on the street" than move to Canada.

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

People don't like it , capich ?
Now, get the fuck out of my face.

Re:questions about the campaign.

[Anonymous Coward]

They are not legal workers, they are not legal immigrants, thus they have no rights here whatsoever

Um, well... human rights surely, wouldn't you agree? And emergency medical care probably would qualify, no?

Re:questions about the campaign.

[AttillaTheNun]

Can you repeat the question? I must have missed it in there somewhere :)

Re:questions about the campaign.

[Zoop]

You assume:

a) The cost is only $10 in taxes. Dubious. Health care, as you note, is expensive. To move to a Canadian-style system would cost loads more money and would make up the difference, as Canada does, by rationing services.

b) Kids with bullets in their stomachs are checked for insurance. Obviously you haven't spent much time in the US. Emergency room care is free for all, and a big source of our medical costs. Free or reduced cost medical care is available for indigent people through the Medicaid program. The service is underutilzed, and people who make slightly more than the qualifying income level tend to opt to save money for other things than health insurance, and they don't do it for ever. Many of these are young people with middle-class or better parents just starting out. The 43 million figure also includes people whose coverage under one job runs out before they start a new job, so it's not as if these people are permanently uninsured. "Under-insured" is very much a loaded term--some people (like me, 10 years ago) choose cheap catastrophic coverage because we're young and healthy and can manage our money well enough to keep the $1000 deductible lying around rather than spending it on beer.

I know, heresy, but there you go. Question authority.

Re:questions about the campaign.

[Tonytheloony]

an american "patriot" just said: "and they get to be guarded by the best police, fire, and military protection in the world"

I'm just curious out of what magic hat americans pull crap "facts" like this? Did it just make you feel patriotic and did you wave your little flag? Stating best military protection would have been enough. The rest is just BS.

Re:questions about the campaign.

[Anonymous Coward]

Is easier then you put it all, you consider every aspect of the problem which is good thinking analizing (decomposing in parts) and you may indeed be very right on each and every subject, but just taking a more global view of the "problem", I can assure you California's economy will not be what it is without illegal aliens, also aplyable to Texas, New Mexico, Illinois, Nevada, we can say without a doubt the United States of America economy will not be what it is without the help of illegal alliens. And so is their contribution to your country which (and I am saying this without any decomposition in parts) is not properly compensated by the gobvernment or the politics there.

More on that, every thing in history categorically everything in history can only be explained by its counter-part, if you want rich capitalists you have to have a lot of poor workers, to become one thing "a capitalist state", without one of the parts of the equitation you wouldn't have the other, another thing is that again everything in human history is motivated by the economics, everything, every war, every wall taken down, everything, not ideals or bullshit like the concept of "freedom" often use by you the "free world" (?).

If your economy wouldn't need or have space for those workers they wouldn't be there period, that is called Dialectic Materialism, and is a Marxist theory, by the way your lame and crumbling little miserable capitalist system that took over the world (and I am really sorry for that by all means) when the "alleged communism" (totalitarian state better called) in Russia finally die miserably as it should, the world has taken a turn for the worst, and you are more likely then ever to receive more waves after waves after waves of those "people", unless the total lack of civil rights takes more drastics turns right into Nazi Germany like state that your country is turning into (in case you haven't notice your president wasn't elected by the people, but by fraud and your civil rights ceased to exist in less then a year since the "attack"), which by the tone of your submission might just suit you right.

Also I hate to see that you borrow from our Socialist Theories to maintain your wrong and stupid and dying system when you should have already proven beyond any reasonable doubt that you can't keep on moving with that Frankeinstein of yours, but eventually you will have to move from that to other thing, unfortunately and fortunately, as it shapes up to be it can go the worst route (fascism), but also there is a chance that people can shake off the system if they make too many mistakes like they are.

How about that!.

Re:questions about the campaign.

[u-238]

Please die you anti-america "enlightened" piece of worthless contribute-nothing scum, thanks.

Re:questions about the campaign.

[Anonymous Coward]

The idea that somehow we suddenly can't run a country without an endless supply of foreigners is absurd.

Tell this to the president of GM. Most "american-made" goods are made in Mexico anyway. A Toyota Corolla has more American parts than most American cars do. But that's beside the point. The point is, unless you want to spend 3 times as much for food as you do now, it's asinine to make a declaration such as yours.

Re:questions about the campaign.

[Anonymous Coward]

However, the reason groceries prices are as low as they are is the low cost of labor when harvesting. If ag employers they had to pay minimum wage and pay taxes on that, produce may cost 2-3x what it does now.

No, the reason prices are so HIGH is because the government subsidizes crops in the US. They pay farmers NOT to produce anything or to flush what they do produce down the toilet. The reason for this is because if they didn't, nobody would make any money on produce. The US has the capacity to make many times over the amount of food needed to sustain itself... if all this over-abundance of food were actually produced, food prices would fall through the floor and destabilize the economy. Such things have the potential to ripple into third world countries... cheap, abundant food in the poor parts of africa would mean people have the luxury of worrying about something else... governments would fall, fire and brimstone from the heavens and all that.

The world's economy depends on crop prices being stable. They are being kept artificailly high. Raising labor costs wouldn't make things cheaper... but they won't make them more expensive either. Expensive labor alone won't raise prices considering the developed world spends $310 billion per year in subsidies to protect its farmers and their price structure.

Commodities operate on a very thin margin. Fraction of a cent per bushel type of margins. The market won't bear any price deviation, it will crush anyone who overcharges, no one will buy from them. Anyone who undercharges is dumb.... they get bought out, and their product is flipped for profit. The market rate is set and the market rate will persist wether immigrants are paid under the table or they make minimum wage and pay taxes. Labor does not really affect the equation, things like weather and insects... now those can have a big impact. Having a farm of just 6 square miles is a multi-million dollar operation. Granted, it takes significant help to run a farm... but labor costs are almost insignificant in these scales of operation. (actually, they are very significant... labor is like a third of a farms budget, but on a national level it's very minor) Immigrant labor is a red herring in politics not a real issue in farming. Do some googling on it, you'll see i'm right. If labor costs (either from availability or from law mandate) were increased, farmers would find ways to cut costs. They would have to... they CAN NOT charge more than their competition... the market won't bear it. Instead, they will move to using more mechanization and relying on fewer, higher paid workers. See here. The same paper also says that halving the labor pool would result in a $10 annual increase to the consumer. In reality, pretty minor on an individual, but huge on a national level. But that's only if the whole increased cost were actually passed on to the consumer BUT because of this mechanization concept and because of market forces, probably NONE of the costs will be passed to the consumer.

The whole system is kind of shameful. To think that we could produce about three times the food with half (or even less) of the labor... all while there are people starving in the world and exploiting poor immigrant laborers. well, it's sickening. But that's how it is.

Re:questions about the campaign.

[_newwave_]

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.

Re:questions about the campaign.

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, while arguing about how to change the law, saying "It's the law motherfucker" makes you the worst sort of moron.

Just thought I'd point that out.

Re:questions about the campaign.

[Nept]

Isn't this an unfair assumption? A better question might be how many jobs have been displaced by illegal immigrants willing to work for 1/10th the pay?
We (in the I/T industry) are not the only ones that face competition from cheap labor. Our chief fear at the moment is outsource - but imagine if all the illegals immigrants were skilled coders? They could replace all of us!

Re:questions about the campaign.

[djandrock]

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]

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.

Re:questions about the campaign.

[Anonymous Coward]

The often white, repulican farmers, wouldn't want their labor force to be depleted...

i'm sorry, but what a load of partisan crap. you're implying that the illegal immigrant population in california is being perpetuated by the white republican farmer lobby? in an overwhelmingly Democrat-dominated state?

Re:questions about the campaign.

[endoftheroadmatt]

do you honestly think these people like where they are in the tax bracket? just to let you in on a little secret, no one likes being poor. it's easy to knock the system when you've never needed it.

Re:questions about the campaign.

[shaitand]

ahh But as you've admitted yourself, the reason the quality of life here is higher is because there is a concentration of wealth. Adding more people into the mix, no matter how much or little they take dillutes that concentration. In short, if they make a dime that's a dime less than those of us who are permitted to work and live here according to laws the people of this nation have deemed fair, right, and honorable, have in our pockets and it reduces OUR quality of life.

Despite the fact that more people = less for those who are already here, we do have ways for people to come here legally and work in our nation, those laws aren't exactly difficult to work within which is why our nation is the melting pot it is. We aren't talking about people fleeing a dictator here, for the most part we are talking about people crossing over from mexico.

For god sake we have an open border with mexico and free trade, we signed in NAFTA, and try to tell me we don't get the short end of that stick as is, it's basically charity to help our neighbors, and still they throw it back in our face and can't follow the proper procedures that would allow them to come in legally.

Re:questions about the campaign.

[srain]

Bah.

Knee jerk emotionalism really is a fun way to make a point, isn't it?

No one is advocating leaving people "bleeding in the streets". We have laws in this country and we must make ALL people responsible for their actions.

How about instead of treating these illegals (on my tab no less) and releasing them back into the streets to further drain my economy and my wallet, we release them into the custody of the INS for immediate deportation. Break the law and pay the price.

Or is personal responsibility and individual accountability too much of a stretch for your emotional free for all on American society?

Re:questions about the campaign.

[Bakaneko]

Well, 187 WAS declared unconstitutional, after all.

http://migration.ucdavis.edu/mn/archive_mn/dec_1 99 7-04mn.html

This made it somewhat difficult to enforce, I'm sure you'll understand.

I suspect something like McCain's plan for guest workers combined with a path to citizenship for said workers is probably the best bet, but that HAS to be coupled with an enforced border. You're definitely right that California RELIES on the migrant workers to get work done, but the way they get here is (pardon the pun) positively criminal, for both sides. The amount of risk to them (you should hear some of the tales friends of mine on the border tell about how people are getting across) combined with the risk that we face of not knowing just who is getting up here, make the case that the current system isn't working, but also that yet another amnesty isn't going to help either.

Re:questions about the campaign.

[compwizrd]

"Free for all"?

Since when?

Only way you can possibly get free emergency care is if you give them a fake address and name and hope they don't check your ID.

Re:questions about the campaign.

[shaitand]

Emergency medical care in those critical situations is covered under different laws. The hospitals must give it, regardless of insurance or finances etc. But after the bill rests with the person who needed the care, not the state.

We aren't talking about who gets treatment and when, we are talking about who pays the bills after it's given.

Re:questions about the campaign.

[shaitand]

Emergency medical care and FREE emergency medical aren't the same thing. AFAIK these immigrants are already covered under the same laws as anyone who does not have insurance, hospitals are required to administer emergency care... that doesn't mean you don't get the bill when it's done.

That is what this is about, not whether or not to save their lives in an emergency, but whether to pay the bill with tax dollars when it's done with.

Re:questions about the campaign.

[Toasty981]

Ideally, I'd like to get rid of the illegal immigrants sapping our systems, and then force the poor overcrowded prisoners into labor. It's no different than chain-gang prisoners cleaning up the highway.

Re:questions about the campaign.

[djandrock]

Here's an example of why not to privatize

Wealthy Canadians come to the United States for surgery. Why? They don't want to wait for months when they can afford to go to a nation where you can get surgery now. Capitalism will always be more efficient than socialism.

Re:questions about the campaign.

[forgotmypassword]

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.

I am afraid that you are seriously ignorant of the American healthcare. Almost half of my extendend family works in the medical field.

If you come into the emergency room with a serious injury you will be treated - in fact it would he illegal for you not to be. Many poor people are treated for heart attacks and gun shot wounds, and they almost never end up paying for their treatment.

In such a situation, you are far more likely to be killed by a really bad insurance policy that would have you drive over to a different hospital while your gut bleeds all over your car seats.

A situation where a poor person might not recieve good treatment would be, say a person that needs a transplant of some sort, or something else really expensive. However there are childrens hospitals and other structures in place to deal with some of this.

But short and to the point, if you are a 60 year old hobo that needs a new liver - then you are probably going to die.

Re:questions about the campaign.

[shaitand]

"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."

I didn't bother reading after this. How exactly do you think it is that taxable wages are reported for these illegal workers with no SSN and how exactly do you think they file income tax returns with no SSN? They can't file, they can't participate at all, so they get $1000 per kid they pop out unless that kid is the child of US citizen, in which case that kid IS a US citizen.

Obviously the real answer for these illegal immigrants is to teach the sexy young seniorita's to assume the position whenever an american citizen walks by them on the street. I think we could all agree this would be an appropriate way to EARN the benefits they recieve.

Re:questions about the campaign.

[shaitand]

For the wealthy, the poor have their teeth crumble, live with worms and other afflictions, have improperly healed bones, and often die waiting for a doctor. But hey, the rich are well taken care of right?

Re:questions about the campaign.

[pmz]

I think illegal immegrants should get healthcare...

Do you think money grows on trees, too?

Re:questions about the campaign.

[jasondlee]

There are plenty of hungry Americans that would be more than happy to do that, given there current status. When you take into account that children of illegal immigrants are immediately US citizens (dual nationals, IIRC), those children take jobs from "real" Americans. Granted, it's difficult to punish the children for the sins of fathers, but...

jason

Re:questions about the campaign.

[ink]

the way they get here is (pardon the pun) positively criminal, for both sides

I agree, but the problem is always pushed off on the illegal immagrants, and almost never onto the demand side of it.

Thanks for that 187 link; that explains it.

Re:questions about the campaign.

[pmz]

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.

Think of the children? What about the drug dealer who fired the gun?

Artificially high drug prices pay the drug dealer. The drug dealer can afford an illegal gun. Dealer shoots kid. Now, I have to pay for the drug dealer's crime?

Nationalized health care will solve nothing. Instead it will force each taxpayer to pay even more on top of excessive law enforcement, judicial overload, and prison overcrowding.

More and more band-aids on top of a chronically infected tumor aren't the cure, here.

Re:questions about the campaign.

[Wakko Warner]

And, of course, there would be absolutely no incentive to have more people arrested, convicted, and put to work for free. You forget we live in a country where the prison system is already a for-profit industry.

- A.P.

Re:questions about the campaign.

[commodoresloat]

I would rather die "with a buller in my stomach on the street" than move to Canada.

The terms of your offer are acceptable. I'll even cancel your flight to Canada.

(sound of gun being cocked)

Re:questions about the campaign.

[Wakko Warner]

There are plenty of hungry Americans that would be more than happy to do that, given there current status.

No, there aren't. Let's not kid ourselves here: someone who was laid off from a $60k/year programming job isn't about to roll up his sleeves and start picking strawberries for $200/week. The idea that illegal immigrants take real jobs from hardworking Americans is bullshit, at best. There are other, more valid reasons, to be anti-illegal-immigration, but the jobs thing is incorrect and a very tired argument.

Re:questions about the campaign.

[peachpuff]

"The fine State of CA has many illegal immigrants on its soil, (in fact it depends on those people for many "lowly" jobs IIRC). Are you planning on REAL citizens covering the insurance costs for these illegal immigrants and their children? Don't you see this as a large enough burden on the population as it is?"

First you say you depend on them to get shit done, then you turn around and call them a "burden" and treat everything they receive as an undeserved gift. Nice doublethink.

If blaming the victim doesn't work, you can always become a stark raving legalist. (Only on this issue, of course. Jaywalking is your god-given right.)

Re:questions about the campaign.

[Anonymous Coward]

whitebread country club

Is that a new brand, I always thought that Wonder Bread was the best...

Re:questions about the campaign.

[krysith]

Economics is not a zero sum game. If a dime made by an immigrant is one less dime made by a native, how do you explain the fact that the US, the country made up of immigrants, is also the richest? It's not natural resources, the Russians have us beat hands down on that.

Immigration is a source of American wealth. It is not charity. It is more like a seed which matures in a few generations. People were saying the same things about the Irish, Italians, Jews, and Poles that today they say about the Mexicans, Phillipinos, and Guatemalans. The process is the same, and trying to stop it is trying to kill the goose that laid the golden egg.

Re:questions about the campaign.

[Anonymous Coward]

To move to a Canadian-style system would cost loads more money and would make up the difference, as Canada does, by rationing services.

I"m sorry, but what? What exactly do you mean by 'rationing'? How much time have you spent in Canada, and how much of that time was spent dealing with our health care system?

It sounds like (as is the case with most other Americans who bash the Canadian health-care system) that you don't know a damn thing about it.

Re:questions about the campaign.

[geekoid]

"I don't care. I'll be gone"

and there is the heart of the matter.

Re:questions about the campaign.

[Nept]

Besides, I'd rather pay an extra $10 in taxes this year

It's going to cost you a lot more than that. Try an extra 10%.

Re:questions about the campaign.

[dipipanone]

especially on /. where the average IQ is probably higher than the tabloid reading masses

I've never seen any evidence to persuade me that this might be true. What makes you say this?

Re:questions about the campaign.

[commodoresloat]

And why is it that nobody goes after the employers of these illegal immigrants?

Because here in California we actually like having cheap fruit, manicured gardens, clean offices, etc. We don't really want to stop illegal immigration in California; instead we want to keep the immigrants coming but keep them powerless and ostracized so that they are more easily exploited. I realize there are people who actually believe the anti-immigration line of thought, like the jingoistic moron you're responding to above, but the reality is that it is divisive and xenophobic hogwash cooked up by demagogues to prey on people's fears in order to get more votes. The immigrants themselves are scapegoats for a host of economic problems of which they only play a part. I hate to sing the praises of George W Bush, but when he was governor of Texas, while Pete Wilson was riding the wave of Proposition 187, Texas was liberalizing its immigration policies. The result: more Mexican business moving from California to Texas, more money for Texas. The Bushies understood in Texas what Californians would do well to acknowledge, that illegal immigration benefits society as well as hurts it.

Re:questions about the campaign.

[stoney27]

you can buy a SSN, complete with card and everything in downtown Santa Ana. They don't even hide it at all. By the time it's found out false, they can have another one -- but the false cards are often legitimate otherwise, so it's difficult to tell (and the employers, ahem, don't check very hard).

That is why the IRS is looking into ways to quickly verify a person's SSN. And States are passing laws, like California state law now says Social Security numbers may not be openly displayed on things such as health forms, bank account records, or forms sent in the mail.

NPR just recently had a story about how this problem with the SSN numbers has a new twist with respect to National Security.

I left California in 1995; after being born and raised there. I miss it at times, but not at the moment... Proposition 187 was supposed to "fix" all of this; it was passed right as I left the state, but it looks as though it didn't do much.

The law was struck down by a federal court as un-Constitutional.

-Scott

Re:questions about the campaign.

[MoronGames]

Giving out free healthcare to illegals would be just like setting a bunch of leaches on the economy. It takes money to pay for healthcare. However, if the illegals managed to become legal, and paid taxes, it would be great to have them get free healthcare as they would no longer be leaches - they would be paying for it through taxes.

Re:questions about the campaign.

[djandrock]

RTFA, that's why I linked it

Re:questions about the campaign.

[Arandir]

Since when?

Since forever. Actually, to be totally accurate, it is not "free" as in "free beer". You're still going to be charged for the medical services, and it may cause you to file bankruptcy. But it is still "free" as in "free access". If you're bleeding from a gunshot wound, you WILL be treated! If your child is sick with pneumonia, he WILL be treated! No, you won't get free viagra, elective surgery, or cholesterol screenings, but you WILL have access to emergency medical care.

Re:questions about the campaign.

[kchoboter]

Here's that link fixed up

Re:questions about the campaign.

[DunbarTheInept]

You do realize that paying taxes is not reserved for citizens only, right? People here on visas still have to worry about April 15th, just like the rest of us. They only way they don't is if they are payed illegally "under the table", which is true for anyone payed "under the table" be they immigrants or not. If your bitch is about the taxpaying people paying for services for the non-taxpaying, then your complaint should be about the practice of payment under-the-table, NOT about immigration. Unless your stance is just thinly disguesed racism, that is.

Re:questions about the campaign.

[DunbarTheInept]

Emergency room care is not free. It's "Save their life now, worry about payment later". That's not the same as free.

Re:questions about the campaign.

[Anonymous Coward]

To move to a Canadian-style system would cost loads more money

Why? A large element of the cost of health care must be the company owners' profits in a privatised system.

Re:questions about the campaign.

[DunbarTheInept]

no, a good majority of Mexican women come to the US to give birth.

Majority means more than half. I doubt more than half of all Mexican women giving birth are coming to the US to do so.

Re:questions about the campaign.

[MuParadigm]

No, but I believe diseases grow in poverty. There is a practical dimension to this, which is that if we want to keep disease low we need to make sure that the poor have access to the same sanitation and health facilities as the rich and the middle-class. Otherwise, we will all suffer when a mass outbreak of cholera or drug-resistant tuberculosis comes, as it naturally will, if we don't take precautions to prevent it.

And like it or not, one of the best preventions is guaranteeing a proactive rather than reactive standard of health care. People who can't afford health care are not going to pay for it; they can't afford to. They will only go to the doctor or hospital when they are already sick or injured. In other words, they will only seek health care reactively.

So if we want a proactive system of health care ot protect the wider community, we have to pay for it. And that means providing some sort of state-sponsored proactive health care. So you see, it's not about your money being used to take care of some illegal immigrant; it's about your money being used to take care of you and the wider society by preventing the situations that can lead to massive health care crises for everyone.

Re:questions about the campaign.

[DunbarTheInept]

Bill O'Reilly recently did a segment on his radio show about that.

Your credibility just went out the window.

Re:questions about the campaign.

[slipstick]

It sounds to me that you would like Americans & the rest of the world to think it's better here than it really is.

I don't know what part of the country your in but unless you live in a cave you couldn't possibly have missed the whole point of the "Romanow commission" (besides wasting money on yet another report I mean).

Health care in Canada is in dire straights. It will very soon break at the seams from the top heavy load of an ever growing and aging population. We have waiting lists for even life threatening maladies. In Saskatoon there will not be a General Pediatrician on call except for emergency purposes for something like 5 days this month. I know, "oh wow, 5 whole days", but why should there be noone on call ever!

The provinces are in bidding wars to attract surgeons,general practitioners, nurses, Radiation therapists, oncologists, you name it.

The ever increasing drug budget for the ever more expensive "new" drugs will eventually help to bankrupt the whole system.

Oh, and if your one of those that thinks having a "two-tiered" health care system is something to avoid. Ask yourself where do the rich Canadians get treated? Not in Canada that's for sure.

No there's no rationing in Canada, we all just get the same crappy level of service! Note that for emergency care it's probably no worse or better than anywhere else.

Re:questions about the campaign.

[kevin lyda]

and i suggested that one might look towards employers of illegal immigrants to settle that bill.

i live overseas. thanks to geo-targeting ad servers i see all the ads promoting immigration to the states. and a lot of those ads look pretty iffy to me. smuggling people to work low-wage jobs in the us and europe is big business.

maybe you folks can have your tax burden reduced along with the margins of smugglers and employers of illegal immigrants.

Re:questions about the campaign.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, I guess that all the people that like their country better than the US are anti-american as well. Because if you don't think that the US is nr. 1, you are clearly a terrorist.

Once, it was patriotic if you wanted to improve your country. Today, it's patriotic to ignore problems and see your country go down the drain. Times sure have changed.

Re:questions about the campaign.

[MuParadigm]

Well, we are talking about who gets treatment when, because those laws only cover emergency treatment. People who are poor and don't have health insurance can't afford preventative, proactive treatment and therefore often won't seek treatment until they are very sick.

Which in turn leads to a breeding ground of disease. No one wants that, and anyone who thinks the solution is rounding up all the illegal immigrants and sending them back to where they came from is being irrational.

So is saying that they will be given treatment, in emergency situations, because it does nothing to prevent emergency situations from occurring.

Re:questions about the campaign.

[kevin lyda]

i'm a big fan of personal responsibilty. for instance, how do those immigrants get into california in the first place? who gives them jobs? there are two groups of people breaking the law - and as an added bonus they tend to have money - a lot more then the average illegal immigrant.

who'd be more likely to pay that hospital bill - the smuggler who gets paid by the immigrant and by the employers, the employers who pay bottom dollar for illegal labour (and no taxes on that labour), or the illegal immigrant making piss-poor wages?

send the illegal immigrant back, sure, but you're still left with a hospital bill plus ins costs. gee. brilliant policy there. ever heard the expression, "to cut off your nose to spite your face." do you understand it?

Re:questions about the campaign.

[Woxbert]

Trying to divide "real" citizens and illegal immigrants the way you're doing doesn't accurately cover anything.

Yes, one happened to be born one side of the US border into a life of relative prosperity. The other is living the American dream by moving to a place where they can make a simple living for themselves and their family.

If you want California to keep running, there needs to be a healthy work-force - and I really don't care about the nationality of that workforce. They're all people.

Re:questions about the campaign.

[shaitand]

Legalized Immigration for which we have checks and balances and introduced skilled individuals who can be considered assets. Teachers, doctors, lawyers, people who bring in new talents and trades.

Immigration in and of itself hasn't brought this nation wealth, it's the skills these people possess. There are a finite number of jobs out there, talented people in those positions whether they originate inside or outside our borders are a boon overall, they will perform well in that position and overall these jobs add up to the business performing well, which boosts the economy. The money for the most part stays in this nation. We are talking about factory workers, not skilled professionals, and a large part of them in turn send what money they do make to family outside our borders.

We are also hardly the richest nation per capita. Overall the most wealth is contained in this nation, we have the largest GDP, but the per capita income is nowhere near as high as it is in many other countries. It's like having more school buildings and teaching the most students, but all of them walk out of school with the equivelent knowledge of a 6th grade education. The wealth here is concentrated with the wealthy, our capitalist system ensures extreme, either your extremely wealthy in comparison with the average or your extremely poor. An Illegal immigrant holding $20 doesn't make the United States $20 poorer as a nation, it just makes the legal citizens (native and naturalized) $20 poorer.

Re:questions about the campaign.

[kevin lyda]

yes, but since you can outsource i.t. and have your workers be legal and living in an area with a lower cost of living, wtf would you want to hire local illegal immigrant coders?

here in europe we have free movement of labour within the eu. i can go work in germany or france or italy or spain. if language is an issue, i can still work in the uk (i live in ireland). that's a lot closer to a free market then nafta is.

with nafta, as i understand it, goods and capital can move around among canada, the us and mexico easier then before. but labour still can't.

Re:questions about the campaign.

[fpu]

Well, though luck -- welcome to capitalism and free market. These days you cannot afford to be competitive only amongst your fellow citizens -- you have to be competitive in a worldwide spectrum. As once stated, one cannot claim any merit on his/her place of birth simply because one had no part in that. People should be proud of their skills and contributions to a 'better world', and not blame others who, in search of a chance to demonstrate their skils, risk themselves in a foreign country as illegal immigrants.

I mean, this is the basis of capitalism -- the most result from the least investment. The state cannot help you there -- much of its money comes from the same companies that will dump you for an [cheaper and more competent] illegal immigrant any time.

Take India for instance. How many brilliant scientists and software engineers are coming from India these days? Do you seriously believe these people should be denied the chance of contributing to a better I/T industry just because the US has the most xenophobic immigration laws in the world?

Re:questions about the campaign.

[shaitand]

And how does that article counter anything I've said? Canada's doctors wouldn't be coming to get in on the US medical racket, and that's what it is, a racket. If we didn't have a medical system that allows it. None of this benefits that AVERAGE american making less than $25,000/yr who cannot afford to pay $150 every 2 weeks for a single perscription.

The article attempts to give the appearance of an unbiased view with a quickie blog of a few minor points made by supporters of state provided health care. Mostly leaving out the most compeling arguments, and the entire rest of the article is devouted to painting a grim picture of health care in canada. The only thing I get out of the article is that our healthcare system is a racket with artificially driven up prices (no secret there) and the Canadian doctors are coming here to get in on it... oh yeah, and Canada has a poor educational system (something that is completely irrelevant to state paid healthcare).

Re:questions about the campaign.

[Anonymous Coward]

have to be competitive in a worldwide spectrum

at the expense of an entire class of workers in the US.

As once stated, one cannot claim any merit on his/her place of birth simply because one had no part in that. People should be proud of their skills and contributions to a 'better world',

Absolute Bullshit. Why should I place the world above my country?

Re:questions about the campaign.

[shaitand]

If it's not an emergency their on their own. Being Humane delcares that we treat a young woman who has been shot on the street and try to save her life. But if she's not a US citizen and therefore isn't paying her share of the taxes to pay for it, she has no business recieving healthcare paid for with tax dollars.

All she would have to do is go through the correct procedure to become a LEGAL immigrant. But she chose to run the border instead. And absolutely they should be offered a chance to become legal productive tax-paying citizens, if they don't qualify or refuse THEY SHOULD be sent back to the nation they came from. We have the laws regarding citizenship (including those spelled out in the Constitution!) for a reason.

Re:questions about the campaign.

[Anonymous Coward]

In America, it is the law that any hospital MUST treat you, regardless of your ability to pay. Hence this whole diatribe is bullshit. No matter who you are, if you have a heart attach, you will get speedy treatment. However, you are left footing the bill if you have no insurance.

Re:questions about the campaign.

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason it didn't do much might be because it was never enacted.

Although a vast majority of Californians voted for it, the proposition was ruled "unconstitutional".

Re:questions about the campaign.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow! That's one big gun... do you need any help loading the bull?

Re:questions about the campaign.

[Anonymous Coward]

The companies that employ illegals either make more money because they do, or they would not be in business making any money if they didn't. Either way, the economy is grown and taxes are paid by the company and it's owners. The illegals also pay sales taxes when their meager pay is spent on their subsistance lifestyle. Taxes are being payed, the economy is larger due to their work, you are not personally footing their bill.

There is no lineup of americans clamouring for these jobs. The work done by illegals is done by them or it would not be done in your country.

Re:questions about the campaign.

[Antisoul]

Please do not use Canada's health care system as an example that the USA should look to. Our health care has more than its share of problems, but Canada's health care system has plenty of problems also. In fact, the University of Toronto is offering a seminar this year which is titled, "Is Anything Right with Canada's Health Care System?" Not exactly a ringing endorsement. "As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand." -Josh Billings

Re:questions about the campaign.

[stoney27]

Thanks so much for cut and past :(

Re:questions about the campaign.

[Anonymous Coward]

The Democrats are in the cities, the suburbs and the country side is where the republicans live, where do you think people like Nixon and Regan came from? Don't blindly paint a whole state with that same brush its attitudes like that which are giving republican the image of all being sterotyping and closed minded.

Re:questions about the campaign.

[kchoboter]

You are truly welcome. But I didn't know you had a time machine... cut and past

Re:questions about the campaign.

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Lax immigration enforcement and sympathetic government creates a large illegitimate workforce.
2. Business exploits this work force under conditions that no legitimate worker will put up with.
3. Middle class erodes -- middle class neighborhoods become segregated into either crime-ridden poor communities or overpriced and insular rich communities.
4. ...
5. Defenders of poor say that economy "depends" on undocumented workers who will do jobs that citizens (really anyone if they had a choice) refuse to do, and rich say that economy "depends" on their exploited workforce... Profit!

Re:questions about the campaign.

[ink]

I'm not implying it; I know it's true. Go down to Any 7-11 corner in Costa Mesa, Santa Ana or Orange sometime early in the morning. Look for the trucks that come by to pick up workers, who pile in (without seats, much less seat belts) to work for the day. Come back later that night as they get off the truck after the sun sets. Look at the person driving the truck. I said nothing about a "lobby"; but I don't think I've ever seen a latino drive up to get a group of trabajadores for the day.

I said "often" republican; not "always" or even "usually". It's kind of stupid for the right to go on about the immagration problem, when they are part of it. Just the other day I had to roll my eyes as a friend complained about how all the immagrants were "taking his job", just as he was securing a Pricline room for $25/night -- I wonder who's going to make the sheets for that Santa Monica hotel... The same syndrome can be seen in the big-box Walmart shoppers; they drive up in their minivans with US flags plastered all over it, complain about foreigeners taking their jobs and then buy as much cheap shit as they can at Walmart. The irony isn't even funny.

Re:questions about the campaign.

[Neurotensor]

This post isn't aimed specifically at the one it's in reply to, it applies to the whole thread.

We have the same citizens vs illegals arguments here in Australia. What we as a nation fail to recognise is that both sides are people.

Go and watch the film GATTACA until you understand the point I'm making.

Re:questions about the campaign.

[bailster]

So what if they don't pay taxes directly? It all works out in the end for the mass of the non-illegals -- and especially the desk-jockey /. readers!

Step 1: They get a shitty low wage to do a shitty menial job, much lower than YOU would want to do the job.
Step 2: You get to take the good desk job with the high wage in a nice office.
Step 2.1: Your spouse/signif other has a good job at a high wage too! (Not like the bad old days of scrubbing and ironing)
Step 2.5: You eat a cheap lunch they made, they clean your office at night, they make the cheap clothes you bought (ever notice real prices are going down even for domestic goods?). Bet you can afford an illegal cleaning lady at home even if you think you're broke right now.
Step 2.9: OK, you pay some taxes.
Step 3.0: The illegals get some social services, etc., if they can qualify. They hit your car, it goes on your insurance -- not theirs.

But you were ex ante compensated by Step 2!

Aside from the fact that LIFE SUCKS for the illegals, what exactly is the problem for you the non-illegal?

Re:questions about the campaign.

[pmz]

No, but I believe diseases grow in poverty.

We would get a lot more milage by making soap and condoms available to everyone, and teaching them how to use them.

It doesn't take a prescription in every pot to do tremendous amounts of good for the poor.

Re:questions about the campaign.

[krysith]

There are not a finite number of jobs out there, any more than there are a finite number of skills. If we had no immigration since the revolutionary war, we would probably have a population of about 30 million. Do you think that each person, man, woman and child, in the US would then have 4+ jobs? I don't think so.

Can you please explain to me what is different between this generation of immigrants and the preceding ones, other than the fact that immigration is no longer easy? I don't remember hearing how all the doctors and lawyers in Europe moved to the US in the 1800's. It's strange how everyone's grandpa was a hardworking immigrant who lived for his children but the illegal immigrant cleaning out your motel room is a poor uneducated slob. I don't see any difference in the immigrants, but the pasage of time has cloaked us from the exact same attitude people had about the Irish, Italians, etc.

We are certainly not the country with the highest per capita income. However, try finding a country our size which has a comparable per capita income. Germany and Japan are the closest matches, and we essentially exported our economic and political system to them. In effect, we immigrated them! (In Soviet Russia... oh wait, wrong country!) We could probably do the same thing to Mexico, but it would take a war. Shhh, don't tell Bush!

If you think our concentration of wealth is extreme, you should try South America. A millionare there is a very very rich person.

Re:questions about the campaign.

[RevMike]

...as long as the richest countries keep exploiting the poorest countries (and hence keep the poor countries poor) there will be individuals who refuse to live the life they are born to.

While I agree with much of what you said, this statement deserves some criticism.

Poverty has many causes. Exploitation by "the richest countries" sometimes is a factor. It is by no means to only or most important factor.

International trade is a two way street. In the long run whenever I buy something from a foreign nation using a US Dollar, that dollar must eventually be used to buy from or invest in the US. Dollars without a US economy are just pieces of paper.

In the days after WWII the US was far richer than any other country in the world. Products from Japan, S. Korea, Taiwan, and Western Europe were very cheap for American consumers. Businesses in those countries used the dollars from their exports in order to buy American capital goods, which started them on the track to build their nations to a US style standard of living. The US still engages in lucrative trade with those countries.

After the colapse of the Soviet Block, the "poor" countries in Eastern Europe have engaged in trade, and reinvested their profits. Their standard of living is rising toward "Western" levels.

India is combating poverty by "tele-exporting" technology skills.

Too many nations of the "third world", however, are led by corrupt leaders who squander the procedes of what trade they have not to reinvest in their economy and improve their standard of living for all, but to coddle a ruling class while oppressing the people. When a business owner makes a profit through foreign trade, he takes much of those profits and uses it to expand his business. When a corrupt politician, however, siezes most of that profit for his own gain, however, the reinvestment does not happen. Look at Iraq: how much money was spent on opulent Palaces for Saddam, his sons, and Ba'ath party elite? If that money had been spend on modern farm equipment, quality manufacturing tools, etc. Iraq might today be a rich country.

The root cause of poverty is a stagnant aristocratic class system.

Re:questions about the campaign.

[Phantasmo]

the University of Toronto is offering a seminar this year which is titled, "Is Anything Right with Canada's Health Care System?"

The U of T also routinely invites right-wing politicians to come and speak, and is the most expensive university in Ontario (and probably in all of Canada).

They definitely have a "target market".

My dad has hydrocephalus, and still lives a normal life thanks to our health care system (and we live in Ontario, where health care is at its worst in Canada).

He went to the doctor compaining of headaches. The doctor referred him to a neurologist. He then asked to see a second neurologist to get a second opinion. He had several MRIs (no 5-year waiting lists) and eventually underwent surgery to relieve the pressure on his brain.
If we lived in the States, we'd either be financially crushed by an enormous debt or my father would be dead. Since we're lucky enough to live in Canada, it was all free.

Oh, and he didn't have to go to the US once.

Re:questions about the campaign.

[wayward_son]

ILLEGAL immigration is bad for America.

My plan: Get legal or go home.

Give illegal immigrants 90 days to do the right thing and register with the INS. Run a background check and if they have only broken immigration laws, then grant them amnesty.

After 90 days, get tough.

Send ILLEGAL immigrants home.

Better yet, have draconian fines for the companies that hire them so that it is no longer profitable to hire them.

That being said, LEGAL immigration is what America is built on. We are a nation of immigrants.

Our immigration laws are still based by and large on 1920's era quotas that wanted to allow immigration from the "best" races and restrict immigration from "inferior" races. This is why it's easy to legally immigrate from Canada or the UK, but not from Mexico or Central America. That's bull----. Make it easier to immigrate LEGALLY, so that any peaceful immigrant who wants a better life in America would choose legal immigration over illegal.

Economy

[BgJonson79]

How are you going to fix the world's 5th* largest economy?

* ABC News last night

Re:Economy

[Anonymous Coward]

It's pretty creepy that America has become so fascist/communist that people would even ask a question like that. As if fixing economies is somehow related to government's job...

Re:Economy

[Anonymous Coward]

fifth largest economy based on what , ice cube production ?

Re:Economy

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe I miscommunicated my idea, then. How is she gonna fix the budget crunch impacting the economy?

Re:Economy

[Nept]

By turning it into the world's 10th largest economy?

Re:Economy

[FroMan]

She doesn't plan on winning and letting Gray stay in office?

Re:Economy

[Anonymous Coward]

California's GDP, bigger than France, smaller than the UK. California provides a full 13% of the US's total GDP. Beat that Texas!

Obvious question

[lovebyte]

Why?

Re:Obvious question

[HaloZero]

Almost sounds to me like your .sig answered your own question.

Re:Obvious question

[Anonymous Coward]

Why ask why?

Re:Obvious question

[Anonymous Coward]

Why, you ask? Because I am Elmer J. Fudd, millionaire. I own a mansion and a yacht.

Re:Obvious question

[mcmonkey]

Not sure why the parent is modded funny--I hope a question along these lines makes it to the finish line.

The winner of this election--whether it be Davis or someone else--is in a tough spot. Things are a little ugly politically in California state government. The fact that there is a recall election for governor will tell you that. Add to that the usual issues facing California--a diverse population over a large geographic area with wildly differing agendas and priorities, immigration, education, subsidies and entitlements.

Add to that the economic issues, over which the next governor will have as little control as the current. The economy goes in cycles, and the higher you go on the bubble, the further you fall on the correction. And California went pretty high. And as large as the state economy is, it is still dependant to a large extent on the national economy. Davis can't change it, Georgy Russell can't change it.

To make things even more fun, AFAIK the next election will go ahead as scheduled, so if Davis is replaced, the replacement will not have a full term in which to come to grips with these issues.

All together, I think it should be presumed whomever is governor after this recall election, that person will not be re-elected. So for someone looking to build a serious career in state politics or use the governor's office as a stepping stone to the national arena, this re-call election is pretty much a dead end. You won't have a full term to fix the many problems, and if things stay the same or get worse, you'll end up as popular as Gray Davis.

So, the question is, why? There is the short campaign and the fact that the democrats are essentially campaigning for 'no election', which favor underdogs and independents. There is the fact that if Davis is recalled, his replacement needs only a plurality of the votes, which won't be much given the low turnout (even by US standards) of this sort of mid-term election.

So, Georgy Russell, why run for governor? Why run now?

(PS. If I was a CA resident, you'd have my vote!)

Re:Obvious question

[OzRoy]

I'll try and extend this question into something that at least sounds more interesting, but still asks "why"? :)

Your own blog, with it's vote/cost comparisons pretty much says that you don't think you will win win. Campaigning for issues like legalised marijuana won't exactly help you gain votes from the conservative public. Even with all the drooling /. geek votes, a win would be very unlikely and probably be one of the greatest upsets in history. So what do you hope to achieve from this?

RIAA vs. America

[southpolesammy]

What are your views on the RIAA's recent actions to protect their copyrights?

Re:RIAA vs. America

[s20451]

I know! How about all users of KaZaA vote for a KaZaA candidate in the next election. It'll be just like that day when all the Napster users were supposed to buy an album to prove that they actually pay for music. Oh, wait, that's right -- nobody did it.

Re:RIAA vs. America

[Pros_n_Cons]

Note to slashdot, you said wanted to get in on the media frenzy so please show us you're more responsible than them by asking the real questions we need answered, no Funnys, no 'do you use gnome' I'm from California and we're on hanging by a thread here, this is very serious business to some of us and not just something to get modpoints with.

Hope to win or shake things up?

[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 making a Ralph Nader like point in forcing certain issues and ideas into the public's eye?

Re:Hope to win or shake things up?

[drinkypoo]

If so, hopefully it works out better than Nader. I seem to recall that three states would have been gore and ended up nader due to misguided nader voters trying to do the right thing and vote with their heart.

So...

[teamhasnoi]

As a geek superhottie, campaigning for the govenorship of California, will you take full advantage of the legions of Slashdotters ready to throw themselves in front of Arnold's limo, screaming, "My life for you!!". Please?

How do you think your involvement in technology can translate to leading California, and indirectly, the rest of the country? I see here that you have filed for several patents. How do you feel about companies such as PanIP using patents as a basis for lawsuits rather than innovation? Will you make intellectual 'property' a campaign issue?

Re:So...

[mhesseltine]

How do you feel about companies such as PanIP using patents as a basis for lawsuits rather than innovation?

Question not to the candidate, but to you: How do you feel about companies like IBM using patents as a defense against frivolous lawsuits, such as those brought forth by SCO?

As for my opinion on it, patents are a double-edged sword. When used offensively against another company over something simple and obvious (one-click shopping, hypertext, etc.), patents are a bad thing. However, if you have a novel idea and hold a patent on the implementation of that idea, and someone violates that patent, then it's a great defense mechanism. In other words, IBM using its patents against SCO is a good thing (by trying to prevent SCO from overstepping its boundries). IBM using its patents against, for example only, Linus for something that's in the Linux kernel would be bad, if what Linus did was "obvious" (loadable modules, maybe)

Re:So...

[Toasty981]

Yeah, let's adopt Georgy. It's time for the Natalie Portman fad to die. Long live Georgy!

Re:So...

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's my question:

If I vote for you, will you pose for a picture in that thong you are currently selling on georgyforgov.com?

Re:So...

[not_a_george]

from link in parent comment:
Georgy was the co-founder of a storage software company, and an avid dancer
ummm, avid dancer?? you want to run for political office and in your bio, one of the best things you can say is avid dancer?
Don't get me wrong,my first thought just like every red blooded male was "OOOOHHHHHHH YEAH!".
How about Help the poor, or debate about how to fix the energy crisis"?
one of the last things I want to worry about is if you can do the tango during the debate for (insert fav. debate topic)...

Re:So...

[trick-knee]

judging from the number and content of comments posted here so far, I'm guessing that your website has been experiencing a fair amount of traffic. yet response time from page requests is still fairly good.

how would apply the process by which you avoid slow response times to your approach to decisions encountered while administering the state of CA? what problems do you forsee in that application of process?

Re:So...

[Dissenter]

Keep this question on the list. I would be very interested in the response.

Re:So...

[Anonymous Coward]

Arnold's done it before post, she could just pose with Arnold, and maybe it would help both of their campaigns.
Thong optional.

The image is in the thread.

Re:So...

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you kidding? Site was slashdotted for almost half a day before recovering.

Tongue-in-cheek...

[Noryungi]

Will you be back for "The Recall 2: Revenge of the Grays?" ;-)

Do you actually think you will win?

[espo812]

Do you actually think you will win? If so, will you be dissapointed if you win with such a small percentage of californians to voted supporting you?

Budget

[QuantumRiff]

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:Budget

[Anonymous Coward]

As scary as it might sound, That is a good idea. have a 5 cent tax on every cup of coffee with more than 20mg of caffeine in it. same with Soda. Then maybe all those froo-froo starbuck's people will switch to Decaf.

You Americans crack me up

[Anonymous Coward]

You are so NOT a democracy.

Good lick, Romans, you are beginning to fall!

Miss Russell,

[TommyH1000]

Your campaign seems to have the momentum of a runaway freight train. Why are you so popular?

Re:Miss Russell,

[paitre]

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).

Re:Miss Russell,

[aziraphale]

You've made the critical error of posting an obligatory Simpsons quote, without pointing the fact out in the subject line. How are you going to get +5 Funny for nodding knowingly at a pop culture reference if the moderators don't know it?

Re:Miss Russell,

[garcia]

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)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).

Re:Miss Russell,

[Kredal]

Yes, my dimwitted compatriot, I must concur with aziraphale on this point.

Worst. Quote. Ever.

--CBG

Re:Miss Russell,

[nizo]

How could a Californian go wrong voting for a candidate selling campaign thongs on their website? Go Georgy!

Re:Miss Russell,

[Anonymous Coward]

I want to see her modeling it!

Re:Miss Russell,

[Facter]

(especially 18-29 aged voters, sadly, most of that group doesn't vote).


Yes, but perhaps it is candidates like Georgy that will bring these people actually out to vote? I know if I lived in the US, i'd be down there voting for her come election time - shes one of a very few political minded individuals I can actually identify with.

the most important question

[Mothra the III]

Boxers or briefs?

Re:the most important question

[Anonymous Coward]

BETTER YET:

"Pink or brown?"

Re:the most important question

[Anonymous Coward]

I think in her case (as with CmdrTaco) pants are optional. Rowr!

Re:the most important question

[colonwq]

Looks like thongs.

:wq

Re:the most important question

[Anonymous Coward]

Boxers or briefs?

or nothing at all. reminds me of a movie quote where a man comments on how badly he wants to be a bicycle seat.

Re:the most important question

[XeXeN]

KDE or Gnome?

Re:the most important question

[markhb]

vi or emacs?

Remainder of my .sig: be the majority of voters.

Re:the most important question

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll make her a deal: I'll vote for you, but if you lose then you take it *all* off for us online. :)

Re:the most important question

[geekoid]

well, that explains it all. she is just trying to make money, not actually make changes.

Re:the most important question

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure that Georgy Russell endorses the products in her store, but has Miss Russell personaly checked the quality of her products?

Any candidate confident enough to put her name on underware is worth at least five min. of my time!

Re:the most important question

[Anonymous Coward]

You know you're a geek if you first check out which O'Reilly book is near the windows, then check to see that even though she as a penguin on her desk, her screen looks very windowish, and trhen lose interest.

Re:the most important question

[Anonymous Coward]

It's actually BOXERS.
Check out the merchandise she's selling.

Re:the most important question

[Sri Lumpa]

If she did agree to that then how would she know you would vote for her and therefore reduce the chance of you seeig her doing it?

Re:the most important question

[Grue]

Good question. Wars have been started over less important issues. Some other highly important policy issues:

coding style?
what level of indentation? tabs or spaces?

bsd or linux?
gnome or kde?

If she can unite the geek community on these issues, she's got my vote :)

Re:the most important question

[MicroBerto]

http://www.georgyforgov.com/images/

Forbidden

You don't have permission to access /images/ on this server.

D'OH!

Re:the most important question

[waitigetit]

Yeah, but she's HOT! (well, for a geek anyway)

Re:the most important question

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe she saw all the referrer links to her small of her back pic?

Damn she is hot

Illegal Imigration

[Mad-cat]

In light of the budget crisis, does the candidate consider illegal imigration into the state of California a problem? If so, does she intend to crack down on it?

Likewise, will the funding of benefit programs to imigrants (legal or otherwise) be cut, maintained, or increased?

Re:Illegal Imigration

[Anonymous Coward]

haha, you're a moron.

Re:Illegal Imigration

[Anonymous Coward]

your mama was a moron. I'm sorry for you....

Against Arnold, why?

[Cutriss]

Do you think you stand a chance against Arnold? If so, why?

Pundits would be quick to point out that "obviously, he'd not run if he didn't think he had a chance"...but I doubt that ~130 miscellaneous people really think they have a chance against Arnold, or even Gary Coleman. Gary Coleman even said he doesn't expect to win, and that he supports Arnold.

Re:Against Arnold, why?

[Xpilot]

Do you think you stand a chance against Arnold? If so, why?

Maybe she is one of them?

She is familiar with computers and all... maybe she speaks modem?

Re:Against Arnold, why?

[AKnightCowboy]

Do you think you stand a chance against Arnold? If so, why?

Of course not. She doesn't even have a chance against Gray Davis, and they hate him! Arnold will be California's next governor. He has superior experience as 2 time reigning Mr. Universe. What is HER political experience?

Re:Against Arnold, why?

[rev_sanchez]

I think what we are overlooking here is the awsome power of the Schwarzenegger/Coleman ticket with Gary Coleman as Lt. Gov. If you are trying to balance a ticket with a giant austrian, you must have a black midget. Its the first rule of politics.

Re:Against Arnold, why?

[xerx]

Well for starters, she is a whole lot hotter than Arnold. She also has just as much political experience. But the real question is... Is she single?

Re:Against Arnold, why?

[Anonymous Coward]

I imagine the tactic of having a ton of people running is a good way to discredit the election and make it look like more of a farse, which might convince people to just vote no to the recall.

I think its ridiculous that its so easy to get on the ticket. Should have cost $20,000 to get on the ballot.

This recall election is going to be the best thing that ever happened to this country in the last 25 years. It's going to teach politicians that they cant just spend taxpayer money carelessly and not face consequences.

Re:Against Arnold, why?

[Overly Critical Guy]

Who's "he?"

Technology

[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?

Re:Technology

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you describe any protential plans to use technology to reduce costs or provide more benefits for the same price?

Well, of course... To cut costs, he'll outsource all IT development to India.

*centric?

[dev_sda]

Just when you started to come to terms with Slashdot being too US-centric, slashdot continues to become more and more California-centric.

Honestly, this whole california governer thing is just the republican party replaying their little Clinton routine. Its like watching a bad washed up comedian trying to use the same material he used back when people pretended to care.

Re:*centric?

[anotherone]

According to polls, the majority of California wants Gray gone. You can't even TRY to tell me that the majority of California is anywhere close to Republican. I don't buy the "it's a party issue" line.

Re:*centric?

[dev_sda]

Why should the rest of us who don't live in California care about this?

The answer?

Its been pushed on the media, they put up the circus tent, put all the signs up advertising the freaks, and here we are, can't even hear a decent story reporting the status in Afgahnistan for all the blabber about freaking California and the stupid recall -- Recall over what? A Budget problem. They don't even talk about the why, because it sounds silly right next to,

"Our president knowingly lied about Iraq's weapons capacity for the sole purpose of gaining popular support for a war he and his close friends stood to directly profit from."

Makes a budget related recalled sound stupid to me.

The true test for the ability to run the state...

[jmuzic1]

The true test for the ability to run a state government is whether or not your website can withstand being slashdotted.

Not so geeky

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like a standard progressive to me. Also, anyone who can spell their own name properly fails to live up to the geek stereotype as exemplified by Slashdot.

I will light up a blunt for her though.

Marijuana

[jester]

Georgy, evidence actually shows that if children use marijuana once a month from the age of 13, they will NEVER achieve their potential. How can you justify your stance on weed given this FACT ?

Re:Marijuana

[Anonymous Coward]

What if their potential was to smoke weed?

Re:Marijuana

[jandrese]

Like most people, I'd hope he'd ask for a link to a peer reviewed study to back up that claim. Personally, I'm curious how you measure someone's "potental". Do Marijuana smokers achieve 95% potental? 50%? At what point do you measure this? When they die? When they reach 50? Simply capitalizing "fact" doesn't make it so.

Re:Marijuana

[kmurray]

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.

Re:Marijuana

[cdrudge]

While I have no stance on the to-weed or not-to-weed issue, care to backup your statement with an actual study? I'm talking about a real study done in a scientific fashion and not sponsored by some special interest group.

I find it hard to believe your statement. How can you say that someone would never reach their potential (however ambiguous that is) if they smoke a joint once a month? Can you prove that they would have achieved their potential on their own if bud never came into play? How can you quantatively specify what their "potential" is?

Re:Marijuana

[Anonymous DWord]

Oh please. You act like potential is something you can quantifiably measure. "Oh look, little Johnny should have been a 4859 on the Frutz-Bluggum scale, but since he smoked weed once in a while, he only got a 3780!" I hope that was just a sorry troll, and not what you believe.

Perhaps a better one would be:
Georgy, evidence actually shows that if children drink coffee once a week from the age of 13, they will NEVER grow taller than 5'. How do you plan on combatting the EVILS of Starbucks given this FACT?

Re:Marijuana

[teamhasnoi]

Georgy, evidence actually shows that if people post things, they will inevitably become a FACT. How can you deny my FACT when I randomly capitalize CERTAIN words, and post no links to my ASSertion?

Re:Marijuana

[Anonymous Coward]

It was reported in the UK about a year ago ... check the BBC news website - they should have a reference to it somewhere.

On the other hand, there is no evidence that taking alcohol once a month would have ANY effect on the development of a 13 yr old.

Re:Marijuana

[nolife]

This is a loaded question.
What evidence are you refering to? I've read numerous studies that claim widely different outcomes about marijuana use, good and bad and many in between. As with anything in life, you have to weigh the pros and cons and make a decision based on your CURRENT needs. There is no one size fits all.

Re:Marijuana

[jester]

Here's a few links to back up what I stated

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2679471.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1855730.stm

There was also a study of about a year ago in the UK which came out with data about people not realising their potential.

Re:Marijuana

[jandrese]

You know what I love, "scientific" studies that forget that correlation != causation.

On the other hand, that's a little unfair since the BBC articles were pretty scanty on details.

Re:Marijuana

[jester]

The BBC articles are simply a digested version of a 'real' article published in medical journals ... if that isn't 'valid' for you the too bad.

Re:Marijuana

[Anonymous Coward]

First off, potheads seem to think that they gain infinite fucking wisdom when they smoke weed. And when you put them with other fucking potheads, you have a whole group of fucking imbeciles thinking that they grasp the cosmic understanding of the motherfucking universe. Have you ever sat and listened to these fucking idiots while they are smoking? I had the distinct DISpleasure of having a fucking ex-girlfriend who smoked pot and thought that she had it all figured out - The Greatest Mind of Our Time! Working at fucking Wendy's drive-thru.

Second, this fucking pinhead thinks that the world will legalize pot? Yeah, that's just what the fucking planet needs. A bunch of asshole pot smokers staggering around thinking that they can solve the world's problems with a drag from a fucking blunt.

I abhor pot and pot-users, because it subjects the normal human fucking race to have to listen to the inane drug-induced musings of a bunch of dirty, go-nowhere, classless rambling fucking idiots. If you need to fucking relax, get into a fucking hottub. Jesus!

So, to make a long story short. Fuck this guy and his friend's pot smoking parents, and fuck anyone else who thinks smoking pot is "good for you."

Re:Marijuana

[AKnightCowboy]

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.

Ummm, beer is probably much easier to get. I'm a grown adult and have no idea even today where I would go to get marijuana. Beer however was freely available in my parents' fridge. Anyway, if beer and marijuana is bad for a 13 year old, why isn't it bad for a 21 year old? Could it be that being drunk and/or stoned off your ass most of the time could have a negative impact on your growth potential as a human being?

Re:Marijuana

[Aheinz1]

Last paragraph of the second article: "Even if lifetime duration of cannabis use is associated with greater impairment after 17 hours of abstinence, the data are insufficient to know whether greater impairment would be present a week or a month later..." So what they are saying is that they have no idea what the real long-term effects are.

Re:Marijuana

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, I just have to ask...did you RTFA?! He's not a he...

Re:Marijuana

[eratosthene]

okay, well, at least the first article makes no mention at all about "potential". this article basically points out something that should be glaringly common sense: if you use x (be it weed, alcohol, nicotine, caffiene), you are more likely to use more of x in the future. wow. and we pay people to do these studies? the second article links long-term cannibis use to slowed/impaired brain activity. i don't think anybody disputes that. the thing is though, that NO ONE CARES. the issue is not whether abusing weed is harmful. it is quite obvious that over the long term it is, as is abusing absolutely anything. there are many, many cases where people have abused caffiene and have permanently hurt their heart and such like. yet caffiene still remains perfectly legal. the issue here is whether making weed legal will reduce the damage it causes. i, for one, think it will. hell, just look at the time in history when alcohol was illegal: that was some of the worst years the us ever had. i propose that weed should be just as legal as tobacco: 18, and regulated. sure, for a few years, there might some issues, but then things will start to even out. for most people, it will lose the appeal it had when it was illegal. and for the ones who continue to abuse it, not much will change, except where they buy it. some people will abuse drugs no matter what. but a lot of people will use some common sense and not do that. alcohol is abused all the time, yet it is legal, because history proved that making it illegal was far more harmful than just punishing those who do stupid things while drinking.

Re:Marijuana

[glenrm]

Not to mention the harm it can cause at a fast food or other dinning establishment. It took me a good ten minutes to order bagels from the obviously baked worker. HE SPEND A GOOD 1 MINUTE JUST LOOKING AT MY CHANGE, not the bills just the coins. It was like Abe or George was talking to him. It was right then and there that I decide weed must stay illegal until people can be fired for being baked on the job.

Re:Marijuana

[pherris]

Georgy, evidence actually shows that if children use marijuana once a month from the age of 13, they will NEVER achieve their potential. How can you justify your stance on weed given this FACT ?

You clearly do not understand what you are talking about. First off, the study you cite [in a later posting] stated that there was only a correlation and not a causation. Your comment has zero facts backing it up. It's like saying since over 80% of all schizophrenics abuse alcohol as teenages then alcohol must cause schizophrenia.

The current war on marijuana costs the US over 9 billion USD per year plus another 1+ billion in lost tax revenue if it was legal and taxed. Legalizing marijuana would open up over 130,000 prison spaces allowing more room for real criminals. The facts are that marijuana is much less harmful than alcohol, tobacco, caffeine and acetaminophen (Tylenol).

A great example of the failure on the war on marijuana is 19 year old Webster Alexander. A undercover cop asked him for some pot, Alexander gave him some. The cop asked again and this time offerred him money in exchange. After four "deals" Alexander was arrest, never given a competent lawyer, tried, convicted and sentenced to 26 years in jail for a total of $250 worth of sales. This is more time than a 2nd degree murder, 1st degree manslaughter or a molestation conviction gets you.

Please stop spreading FUD about marijuana because someone just might believe you.

Facts and Myths about Marijuana
"Marijuana Prohibition Costs Over $7 Billion Annually"
26 years for $250 worth of marijuana.
"Teenager Dies from Acetaminophen Overdose"

Re:Marijuana

[mark_lybarger]

at age 13, they're both accessable. bedides, itdoesn't really matter, and is a mute point. society doesn't have the right to regluate this personal freedom (chemical induction).

Re:Marijuana

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe if I fucking use fucking after every fucking work I fucking can get my fucking point across fucking clearly. On the other fucking hand, if I fucking use the fucking word every fucking other fucking word, I'll look like a fucking jack ass with a fucking mentality of a fucking 12 year old.

Re:Marijuana

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm 14 and legalization of marijuana isnt gonna do anything. Everyone i know who smoked weed atleast once a month, has below acerage grade,gets in trouble with the law, or their parents, or the school quite a bit. Its not like alcohol. People can drink once a week and still have college degrees and jobs and minds that function properly. marijuana is used as a pain killer, it doesnt cure. It dumbens down your brain and the tar and other chemicals affect you as much as cigarettes or possibly even more.
Adults i know who used to be users in middle or highschool, generally are unhappy with their lives, have badjobs, and bad relations with their families.

Re:marijuana

[Anonymous Coward]

Revolution, Man! She would smoke pot on the air and encourage every Californian to do the same. Can't arrest us all, Dude!

Re:Marijuana

[holt]

"Bedides"? "Mute" point? "Regluate"? I support legalization, but it doesn't help when people argue about it while they're high.

Re:Marijuana

[holt]

People can be fired for being baked on the job, just the same as people can be fired for being drunk on the job. Come on, surely you can come up with something more intelligent than that.

Re:Marijuana

[Sri Lumpa]

I don't know about California but in the UK tobacco use is illegal under age 16. What makes you believe that she is for the legalisation of marijuana for all age groups?

Re:Marijuana

[Anonymous Coward]

Kid, the reason those people smoked marijuana is because their lives suck, not the other way around. Wake up.

Re:Marijuana

[Anonymous Coward]

I was going to make a real good joke about this,
but then I got high!

Re:Marijuana

[mark_lybarger]

i suppose i could have had a little more sleep on the weekend. fuck, man. a few misspellings and that completely turns you off on the point of the post, eh? the government doesn't have the right to regulate this shit.

Re:Marijuana

[holt]

Eh, you're right, I agreed with your point all along. Long day at work, I felt like flaming someone. LOL. No hard feelings, I hope.

Hanz and Franz asked me to send this:

[tundog]

Dear pathetic little girly-man,

What is stopping ARN-ald from crushing your little girly-man body with his pumped-up biceps? I mean really, listen to me now and hear me later, how do you expect to beat ARN-ald when are a pathetic little girly-man?

Sincerely,

Hanz & Franz

Re:Hanz and Franz asked me to send this:

[Pxtl]

RTFA. Its a girl. Hence, not a vimpi lyttol girli man.

Re:Hanz and Franz asked me to send this:

[Jonny Ringo]

Sadly thats actually true. Listen to this old political speach he gave

http://www.celebrityrants.com/content/celeb_schwar zenegger.html

Re:Hanz and Franz asked me to send this:

[geekoid]

haha, that is exactly the mistakes Hanz and Franz would make.

It was genius.

Re:Hanz and Franz asked me to send this:

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't really understand the joke, do you?

Re:Hanz and Franz asked me to send this:

[Antisoul]

Umm, Georgy is a girl. Which makes her a girly-girl. Not a bad thing IMHO.

"I believe in everything -- a little bit." -Marilyn Monroe

Re:Obvious answer

[lovebyte]

Well, because!

Do you think this election is Real?

[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?

Re:Do you think this election is Real?

[decepty]

All she'd need to do is start a "war against terrorism" and ANY election fiascos will be overlooked (same thing works for "youthfull indiscretions", corporate corruption, power-hungry insanity, and the general rape and sodomy of basic rights and liberties). Just like, uhm, this other politician I've heard of...

There should be no such thing as a "professional politician"...

My questions

[Henry V .009]

What do you think of illegal immigration in California? How do you think California should handle the budget demands imposed by it? And what do you think about companies in California out-sourcing high tech jobs to foreign countries and importing workers through the H2-1B Visa program in order to drive down wages in California?

Re:My questions

[Anonymous Coward]

Outsourcing in CA is not about driving down wages. CA has a rediculous set of anti-business laws in place. To qualify for workers comp here you need little more than to say you hurt somewhere and you get paid leave for as long as you claim to hurt. We also have a law on the books that allows any law practice to sue any business alleging fraud, even if there isn't a plaintiff. Anyone can basically sue on behalf of "the people". This has created a number of law practices that just send out massive legal notices with requests for 3k-5k to clear it up. Of course all of that money goes to the firm and not to any plaintiff. Its really a wonder any industry is here. The Dems totally run CA. I'm all for a progressive agenda, but there aren't enough conservatives to keep things in some semblance of check. Balance was lost when Deukmejian's terms ran out. At least he would tell the legislature no most times when they tried to pass wacky laws like those above.

Re:My questions

[Henry V .009]

California's anti-business laws are the marvel of the nation, certainly. But how do they keep out-sourcing to cheap foreign labor from driving down wages?

Re:My questions

[Anonymous Coward]

They do obviously, drive down wages. But that is not what the outsourcing is about, not the motivation in CA. I have tried to demostrate that the outsourcing is about avoiding doing business in CA altogether.

Re:My questions

[Henry V .009]

I think that is part of it. But I'd be surprised if that were the whole issue. If it were, then most outsourcing would go to other states, not other countries.

Media Attention

[BigDork1001]

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?

Seriously

[lowtekneq]

Alright, you may know your stuff in the geek world, but California has some serious problems. I'm sure most questions will be tech related, and though technology is a huge part of today's world there are so many more important things out there. Do you really want to be the George W. Bush of California?

Re:Obvious answer

[Anonymous Coward]

A better answer would be Why not?

The question on all of our minds . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

Will you sleep with me?

recall?

[Councilor Hart]

As a non-american, can someone explain how this recall works?
Why it should be implemented? I don't mean the reason for this occurrence, but why recall at all is a possibility.
In belgium, we elect the parliament or city/town council. Those in power are those who have the majority in parliament/city/town. When they lose that support, everyone/that one person is send packing. Depending on the government level (city council,...,state, country) there can be early elections.
Please enlighten me. Thanks

Re:recall?

[Anonymous Coward]

You need to watch Arnie's film "Total Recall" ... they use the same process ;-)

Re:recall?

[paitre]

This is essentially the same as early elections, only it involves a couple of steps:
First, popular support within the state of California had to be shown via petition. Once it's demonstrated that a significant percentage of voters support the recall effort (and to be honest, 875k voters in CA ain't -THAT- much...it really should be a percentage and not a hard number...), then the recall election is scheduled and deadlines for candidacy are set, etc.
The election itself is a two parter: The first part is essentially a vote of no-confidence, and the second is a vote for the replacement candidate of the voters choice.

Gray Davis currently polls in the low-20s. That basically means that close to 80% of the population of CA believe he's doing a shitty job.
Bush, on the other hand, is still jumping between the 50's and mid 60's.

*shrug*

Follow up...

[teamhasnoi]

Will you be campaigning wearing some of your "Georgie for Govenor" merchandise?

qualifications

[spoonyfork]

In addition to being the co-founder of a storage software company and an avid dancer, what other qualifications and leadership experience do you have to politically lead the fifth largest economy of the world?

Did you pay SCO?

[sharkey]

Did you pay for your Linux licenses?

Re:Did you pay SCO?

[El_Ge_Ex]

Did you pay for your Linux licenses?

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

-B

Re:Did you pay SCO?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

As a preface to the rest of this comment, I'd like to point out that I live in Utah.

PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD NUKE DARL MCBRIDE.

please?

Re:Did you pay SCO?

[Aidos]

Funny yes, but what if she did?

Re:Did you pay SCO?

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be a lovely site from the Point of the Mountain, wouldn't it?

Re:Did you pay SCO?

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. I can just see the mushroom cloud billowing upwards over happy valley. Oh glee! And then we could don that cool neon yellow protective gear and go traipsing through the wreckage in search of 'ground zero' also known as 'Darl's Ass'.

Re:Did you pay SCO?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ask North Dakota to do it, they got more nukes than anyone.

My Question(s).

[American AC in Paris]

If you are elected Governor of California, are you at all worried that one of the other contenders would simply bankroll a second recall election?

How would you deal with this?

How does it feel to be slashdotted?

[fuzzyping1]

Long live /.

Re:question

[Tirel]

plz mod me down again (try to select the right radio button this time, asshole), i'm on a roll.

Single?!?

[John Whorfin]

My God, have you people seen her picture? I think I speak for most /.ers when I ask:

Um, are you seeing anyone?

Re:Single?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Leave her alone, she's miiiiinnnnnnneeeeee

Re:Single?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

where is your picture?

Re:Single?!?

[Nobelium]

Yeh, are you single? You're 26, a bit older than me but I'd live with it ;)

So for the other people, yeh she's 26 and lives in Mountian View--right next door to me. And to the guy who said she's not all that, I disagree. Depends on what you're looking for. I tend to hate the "fake" girls who wear lots of makeup and dress to impress. She's a more "hometown" (for lack of a better word) type girl. So she is extreamly attractive.

No Confidence Votes

[sulli]

If you win, there will be a recall every year from now on, as the Demos won't take this lying down. Are you prepared to spend all your time fighting recalls instead of running the state?

Re:No Confidence Votes

[deanj]

I completely agree with this. They're doing protests elsewhere, why not in California too? I think it's pretty sad that they're resorting to this kind of tactic.

Re:no confidence votes

[Randolpho]

Er... I suppose I wasn't clear. You're right, of course. That's the reason I mentioned Germany's *constructive* vote of no confidence. In Germany, you essentially elect the new Chancellor as a part of the vote of no confidence. If no replacement can be found (by majority, IIRC), the current Chancellor stays.

Re:no confidence votes

[rainer_d]

If no replacement can be found (by majority, IIRC), the current Chancellor stays.

Good. I'm impressed of your knowledge of German constitutional affairs, which most Germans would have problems to explain ;-)
But your assumption is not 100% correct: If the constructive vote of no confidence fails, a new parliament has to be elected (re-elections).
In 1982, Chancellor Helmut Kohl pulled this trick (his own party voted against him) to get into office and subsequently, the German supreme-court made it clear that you can pull this trick only once ;-)

cheers, Rainer

Re:no confidence votes

[Randolpho]

Wow, I didn't know that. Very interesting, thanks. :)

Re:No Confidence Votes

[geekee]

" If you win, there will be a recall every year from now on, as the Demos won't take this lying down. Are you prepared to spend all your time fighting recalls instead of running the state?"

Yes, Willie Brown is threatening to start a recall of his own IMMEDIATELY if a repulican wins

Questions...

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you living tissue over metal endoskeleton too?

No seriously. As a candidiate for California - the most tech-heavy state in the US, can you give assurances that if you get into office, you will categorically make sure that Skynet is not built?

When will the DVD be out?

[the_real_tigga]

Can I get the whole "California Elections" comedy series on DVD?

Will there be a computer game?

Will I be able to buy candidates' portrait cups at Mc Donald's?

Know any good erotic fan-fiction sites?

The environment

[jester]

Georgy where do you stand on the environment ? After your President failed to endorse the Kyoto agreement, the US has done nothing but pollute the environment and show no sign of taking the responsibility for this attitude. Global warming is showing signs all around us and still your nation does nothing. You have no public transport strategy, you all use your gas-guzzling cars to drive small distances, and your policy on clean energy is non-existent.

Can you make the difference and take a lead on these issues to generate more respect for your country ?

Re:The environment

[deanj]

He's running for governor, not President.

He should read this first.

Yes, pollution needs to be decreased, but not with something like Kyoto.

Re:The environment

[Anonymous Coward]

She. RTFA!

Sorry, someone has to do it....

[DrJohnnie]

Mr. Russell: your campaign seems to have the momentum of a runaway freight train. Why are you so popular?

Re:Sorry, someone has to do it....

[Anonymous Coward]

She! RTFA.

Re:Sorry, someone has to do it....

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone already did, RTFP 6666261

No one else has asked, so...

[smcavoy]

Could I get your number please?

Re:question

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm glad I read the parent before it got modded down, it motivated me to go to her page (RTFA so to speak) and realize what a hot animal she is.

Who would you vote for?

[valkraider]

If you weren't in the running:

Out of the remaining cantidates who would you vote for?

Re:Who would you vote for?

[shaunyb]

Arianna Huffington. read her book Pigs at the Trough

are you just another stupid techno-libertarian?

[kevin lyda]

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:are you just another stupid techno-libertarian?

[Anonymous Coward]

for instance we get free, good quality primary and secondary education - will you work towards free third level education?

"Free"? What is this "free" you speak of? I think you mean "subsidized by taxes". I also love when people refer to the government as some kind of third party that has tons of money. The government is PEOPLE!!!

Re:are you just another stupid techno-libertarian?

[Anonymous Coward]

You have no idea of how much waste is built into all government action. At least with the private sector, the wasteful / stupid end up going bankrupt and out of business.

hear the crunch

[Teach]

If elected, will you take what you (and your campaign site) are learning today and apply it in the event that California itself gets slashdotted?

which is better?

[larry bagina]

Being elected Governer of California

-or-

Sex with a mare

Re:which is better?

[Hilleh]

Her being a female raises all sorts of interesting questions about the feasibility of mare-sex ensuing.

Microsoft....

[zarthrag]

Will you take a tougher stance on the Microsoft case and not sell out for a pithy few million? (that's right, I'm bashing!) Also, what is your stance on privacy? Spam? RIAA Maddness? And a free 54Mbps Wifi network for the *entire* state, every last square inch of it!

Re:Microsoft....

[Anonymous Coward]

And would you immediately deploy the California National Guard to shoot every last idiot who reads Slashdot, since they so OBVIOUSLY need to die for being such seriously stupid trolls?

....Hmmm....

[evilviper]

Aren't you afraid that you will quickly be... (Dare I say it?) Terminated

Oh yeah... Boxers or briefs? ;-)

Do you understand..

[niko9]

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

The question on every /.'ers mind

[Anonymous Coward]

"Will you marry me?" :o)

Is the democracy in the US a true democracy?

[TripleA]

As I see it, the US representatives do not represent the people that voted for them, but the companies and individuals who made it possible for them to be voted on (by giving money to their campaign). What is your opinion, is the US really the most democratic country in the world, as many americans want to believe?

Re:Is the democracy in the US a true democracy?

[shaunyb]

the Electoral College is proof that we're not a democracy. lobbyists are proof that we're not a republic.

/.'d

[maxphunk]

How does it feel to be slashdotted?

SCO

[mao che minh]

Do you find any merit in SCOs IP claims against Linux? If not, why? As a side note to the question, what would you suggest to a company that is thinking about using Linux but has SCO concerns?

Who's in your staff?

[zoneball]

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?

Free Software California

[bfree]

California appears to have the highest concentration of techinically literate people in the USA. How would you view the proposition of retooling California to only use Free Software in all (feasible, would need to be phased in) areas where the state has control (as opposed to private companies)? I would view this as having the advantage of reducing funds leaving the state and also developing a California based expertise which could be exported worldwide in helping other states (be they US style or actual countries) in converting to using Free Software. Each region which converts to free software is breeding an workforce for the future, both for its own needs and as an exportable commodity, would you like to take colifornia into the lead here by leveraging its already substantial technoligical know-how?

Liftin'

[toupsie]

Let's cut to the skinny. How much can you bench press?

budget crisis

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Since you're running against Arnold

[jbrandon]

I assume you disagree with him on his fundamental principles. (See what is best in life)

Do you believe in the open steppe, fleet horse, falcon on your wrist, wind in your hair, or do you espouse some strange "third party" best-in-life principle?

Energy & Presidents

[cybermace5]

1. If you won the election, would you honestly push for a 100-square-mile surface area solar panel array? Do you have any idea of the amount of expense, energy, and emissions required to make that amount of solar panels?

2. Why do you continually attack Bush and supposed administration policies in all of your literature? Wouldn't it make more sense to discuss the intentions of candidates who are actually running for governor of California? If the current governor of California cannot prevent Bush from influencing the state, how would you?

Re:Energy & Presidents

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't I see your $1,000 bounty for a job like a year ago ? Is it working ?

Re:Energy & Presidents

[cybermace5]

No, Bush personally came to my house and took my job away. I shook my fist at him while he did it, but there's only so much you can do while a Secret Service agent has his boot on your neck. I was told my job was going to given to Bush's cash-loaded oil buddies in Texas, because they collect 'em or something.

Really, it was a nice experiment. Other tactics turn up many more promising leads, but this one mostly gets people who are interested in the idea and want to know if it works. I guess nobody wants $1000.

Re:Energy & Presidents

[cybermace5]

Mods, do me a favor please and pop this one down to 4 again. I prefer my other +5 question much, much more. Thanks! You're closest thing to an "Edit" option I've got, buddy!

Re:Energy & Presidents

[Magnus Pym]

You are being facetious, but if you were in the Telecom industry before 2000, and if you are unemployed now, Bush did really take away your job.

See, what happened was this: there were these companies called "Competitive Local Exchange Carriers" (CLECs) that were the product of the Telecom de-regulation acts. They were supposed to be able to out-compete the entrenched Phone Companies (ILECs) by offering innovative services.

The entire telecom boom of the late 90s arose due to the promise offered by these CLECs. Tons of telecom startups employed lots of smart people, and developed innovative technologies to provide to these CLECs.

However, there was a fly in the ointment. The ILECs had to provide access to their local lines to the CLECs at reasonable rates, over which the CLECs would provide these new, high-tech services. However, (surprise!) the ILECs would resort to every trick in the book to frustrate, confound and thwart these CLECs.

There were many court battles between these ILECs and CLECs. The CLECs had a chance because the Democrats had the White House. But the moment Bush won, it was all over. All the money men knew that the CLECs had had it, because the Republicans favor those who are already rich, as opposed to those who are trying to get rich.

Venture money to the CLECs dried up, and so too to the startups that were hoping to supply them. It is no coincidence that the economy started crashing as soon as Bush came in.

So you see, Bush did take away your job.

Magnus.

Re:Energy & Presidents

[cybermace5]

Actually, in 2000 I was in the industry of sleep and schoolwork, and succeeding at neither.

(Well, at least enough to get a degree)

Re:Energy & Presidents

[geekee]

If you're working for a CLEC and placing your job security on the promise that the govt. will keep its guns pointed at the people who own the phone networks and demand they lease their network at whatever the govt. decides is a "Fair rate", then you shouldn't be surprised when someone comes along who thinks the govt. is overstepping their bounds.

Georgy merchandise

[Anonymous Coward]

Georgy, I browsed your merchandise page ... have you got a pic of you wearing the "Classic Thong" ?

Don't worry comrade

[Anonymous Coward]

She sounds like a typical Berkeley progressive. She sounds just like the candidate for you.

Okay - after having looked on her site...

[Pxtl]

I think I speak for almost every man here when I ask you the one question every guy here wants to ask you...

Will you marry me?

(well, every /.er here but self, as self is already engaged to other magical wonderful woman).

Re:Okay - after having looked on her site...

[Anonymous Coward]

Clearly not, I low-balled it and asked her out, and all I got was this lousy tshirt.

Re:Okay - after having looked on her site...

[Anonymous Coward]

I realize this will never make it above -1, Troll, but I have to say it:

OMGx0r teh h0tness!!!!!!!!!!!!!11!!!!11!

Re:Okay - after having looked on her site...

[Sri Lumpa]

Actually I have two questions for her:

1. You have made your position with regard to Gay marriages clear, however what is your position with respect to polygamy.

2. If you are favorable to polygamy, would you marry me?

A Geek as the natural selection for Slashdot?

[Anonymous Coward]

The natural selection for an interview by Slashdot that would interest Slashdot readers would be Mary Carey or Larry Flint. This guy is just one of us; who cares what he thinks--we already know!

Come on, Slashdot! Give us Marey Carey!

(I don't even have to explain who she is...Slashdotter's know.)

Mandating Open Source?

[schnarff]

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

Vote libertarian instead!

[Thinkit3]

Why aren't you libertarian? Better yet, why is a non-libertarian mentioned on slashdot? Geeks are largely libertarian. Vote Ken Hamidi!

Re:Vote libertarian instead!

[dowobeha]

Speak for yourself!

You're looking at a genuine American Socialist! Sen. McCarthy didn't get all of us...

Re:Vote libertarian instead!

[swordgeek]

Thank god!

Glad to see some of you still exist down there. Keep up the odd fight

Re:Vote libertarian instead!

[Anonymous Coward]

Ken Hamidi? I'm curious, why not Ned Roscoe?

Dear Georgy

[Anonymous DWord]

How do you feel about Slashdot crushing your puny server right in the middle of a campaign?

Firearms laws

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:question

[Tirel]

thanks, this means a lot to me. you know, i was aiming for +5, funny, but failed. i wonder if this has some deeper psychological meaning.

Re:question

[Pxtl]

Mod parent up - its on topic, and much more to the point then my post. Hell, I'm sure he speaks for a lot of guys here.

Twenty percent vote could win

[gone.fishing]

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?

More importantly, is the recall legal

[Microsift]

The people who started the petition for the recall began the process on February 5th, less than a month after the beginning of governor Davis's second term.

This raises the critical question, were they tring to recall him because of something he did in his first term as governor? If this is the case(and unless he had an abysmal first month of his second term, it has to be) how can he be recalled? The voters made their assessment of Governor Davis's performance during his first term when they reelected him.

And yes, the California Recall system is screwed up, and no one who believes in democracy should support it.

Re:More importantly, is the recall legal

[leviramsey]

Davis apparently ran a fraudulent campaign, specifically as regards the expected budget deficit. From other posts in this story, he spent the campaign claiming that the deficit would be $10-12 billion, and claiming that his opponent's claim of $25 billion was wildly exaggerated. There are plausible allegations that he conspired to keep the reports of the actual deficit (which was announced to be $30 billion and is now estimated at $38 billion) unreleased until after the election. In this case, the logic behind the recall is that, had all the facts been known, Davis would not have won.

Re:More importantly, is the recall legal

[Lemmy Caution]

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.

Re:More importantly, is the recall legal

[Anonymous Coward]

And yes, the California Recall system is screwed up, and no one who believes in democracy should support it.

What are you talking about? This is democracy at its best. The people are taking control back from the corrupt politicians.

Re:More importantly, is the recall legal

[Microsift]

The people are taking control back from the corrupt politicians.

and giving it to someone who may have as little as 1% of the vote!

That's probably not going to happen, but there's little doubt that if Davis does not defeat the recall, that there will be more votes in favor of him staying governor than there will be votes for the candidate who wins the second item on the ballot.

But...

[Tom7]

Don't you think it's worth it to have Arnold be governor, no matter what it messes up??

Re:But...

[gfxguy]

If he loses, the "governator" WILL BE BACK.

Equal Time

[bmongar]

In the spirit of equal time perhapse slashdot should submit the questions to all 100+ cantidates and post the responses.

Yeeehooo!!!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

"The site www.georgyforgov.com is running Apache on Linux." (source: www.netcraft.com)

Alright guys,

[Trigun]

Quit slashdotting the image gallery!

And someone get on the horn to TSG. Let's see if she paid for college the way we're all hoping she did!

Why...

[Anonymous Coward]

...should the rest of us care about this nonsense? As someone who had the poor sense to move to California for a year (and then the good sense to leave), I can say firsthand that that state is filled with crazy people. How can it possibly be that this isn't just more proof? Why would you want to be in charge of the world's largest loony bin?

Geek Jobs

[WPIDalamar]

Being a Governor in california may give you the possibility for soem unique control over technical jobs and the tendency to outsource those. Also, I would imagine a governership could eventually lead to a congressional seat.

That being said, what would you do to help stem the tide of hi tech jobs leaving our country as Governor, and what would you try to do if you were eventually elected to congress?

So...Qualifications.

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a better question. Are any of these candidates actually qualified to run a state?

Show is nice, but results are better.

Re:So...Qualifications.

[shaitand]

Candidates don't run a state, their advisors do, of which they have plenty. They make the final call (subject to those corporate entities which paid for them.. err.. contributed to their campaigns) but generally people who can at least present credentials are giving them the options and the ups and downs.

CA..

[mesmartyoudumb]

Ca,the "Break off and sink" state.

can't resist...must reference star wars...

[ed.han]

me personally, i was afraid the reason for disliking votes of no confidence would revolve around its use in TPM. heaven knows so many things are guilty by association due to that movie...

in all seriousness, though: IMHO, votes of no confidence are a legitimate method of redress for the electorate in the rare instance that they feel the elected official pulled a "bait and switch" on them. ask most residents of new jersey re: our previous governor, christine todd whitman...

ed

Do you believe in your candidature?

[ParnBR]

I'm Brazilian, and we have a lot of parties. Many of them ally in majoritarian elections, but it's still common to have 3 or 4 major party candidates, and a few minor party candidates in any election for mayor, governor or president. Some of them publically recognize they don't stand a chance, but still want to participate in the electoral process to defend their ideas in a democratic way, as it's their right. Do you honestly believe in your candidature, or you are there just to make a point?

Greetings from Brazil. The forthcoming Californian election is drawing a lot of attention here. We are curious to see what's going to happen. =)

Slashdot Effect

[happosai_tendo]

As your site has now felt the effects of the Slashdot effect and given the recent article on how to overcome this effect, what changes will you put in place to assure your website remains responsive. As a followup, how would you relate the slashdot effect to real world economics.

Endorsements

[big_gibbon]

I don't live in Cali (let alone the States), but I'd be willing to vote for anyone who had an endorsement like this:

"As Georgy's 6th grade flute teacher at Hillcrest elementary school I can unequivically say that she is more qualified than any other candidate. She learned the 'Baby Elephant Walk' in one week, and along with her colleagues, Anika Thielbar, Brian Collins, Azizi Tucker, and Steve Mooney, she helped to put on the greatest concert in the history of Hillcrest elementary school. Her leadership qualities were apparent back then, and it is time to give her the opportunity to run this state. Move over, Gray. Georgy for Governor!" - Randy Porter, Teacher

Splendid!

P

Err...

[Anonymous Coward]

You read /. so couldn't you have predicted what's happened to your site and done something about it?

Direct Demoncracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Georgy, what do you think of Direct Democracy?

California's foreign policy.

[Wacky_Wookie]

As a foreigner (Canadian Living in the UK) I am very interested in your views on setting California's foreign policy. With the worlds 5th largest economy at your disposal, once you get elected, I would be very interested in seeing California's economic strength put to good use in steering US foreign policy.

Thong

[Anonymous Coward]

Will you model that thong for us? Please?

Re:Thong

[hey]

this is what the AC is talking about!

California's dismal education system

[IvyMike]

Your site is slashdotted to all heck right now, but on the pages that I did manage to load, I didn't see anything about California's education system. Last I heard (which was a few years ago) we were ranked 49th in the country (thank you, Louisiana!). I don't have any children, but my friends at work do, and my sister is a teacher (on emergency credentials), and the stories they tell about California's schools are frightening.

As governor, this is one of the areas that you would have a lot of control over. What are your ideas for improving our state's schools?

hot geek girl runs for office?

[MikeFM]

I think I should feel bad.. my first thought on seeing the story was 'yeh uhh huh, like a geek could get elected.' then 'wow, that used female pronouns.. geek girl?' and finally when I clicked on the site all conscience thought stopped as I mentally drooled at the prospect of a cute geek girl. My first thoughts were not what she was running for but to wonder if she had a web cam. Obviously, that is not proper behavior but it could be useful to her.. all those Natalie Portman fans now have somebody new to drool over and then can insure her continured media coverage by voting her into office. Can she really pull in all the trekkies, geeks, nerds, etc? If all those people voted she might do well.

To bad I live in the wrong state. When she runs for President she has my vote.. especially if she promises a 24/7 webcam of her activities.

Re:hot geek girl runs for office?

[Anonymous Coward]

What if she's a lesbian? That screws things up, doesn't it? BTW, did you look at the hot pic? She's running Windows with IE with (shudder) Hotbar. She's not a geek.

Re:hot geek girl runs for office?

[MikeFM]

Lesbian? That's even more exciting. As all I can do is watch anyway we might as well involve a second woman. Oh no... nobody who EVER runs Windows and IE can be a geek. Damn her for not using Linux on every computer she hapens to be photographed with. Damn it that's what Knoppix CD's are for!

Debate?

[dr_dank]

Who would your ideal opponents in a televised debate be?

Hmm.

[Wakko Warner]

How do you feel about living in what can only be described as the biggest laughingstock in all of American politics? (This is a relatively tall order, given Florida's role in the 2000 election.)

- A.P.

Image gallery /.'ed

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's the Google Cache. Thank you google!

Re:Image gallery /.'ed

[dfries]

How can an image gallery with two images be slashdoted? This isn't a web cam, stop reloading they won't change every five minutes.

What part of illegal don't you understand?

[www.sorehands.com]

They are illegal. Companies can save costs by not paying wages to people who worked there. Taxi companies can save money by stealing cards to use as taxis instead of buying them.

Re:What part of illegal don't you understand?

[kevin lyda]

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.

Re:What part of illegal don't you understand?

[Anonymous Coward]

The part where the character of our nation does not allow that we restrict the immigration of persons.

As John Adams said:

"Yes, they are citizens. They are people and they are here. If there is any other requirement, I've never heard of it."

Re:What part of illegal don't you understand?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah so you would simply ignore the law and let them all in.
Right ?
Who gives a fuck about borders, laws and all that shit ..

Re:What part of illegal don't you understand?

[kevin lyda]

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.

Re:What part of illegal don't you understand?

[shaitand]

Nobody is talking about denying them medical help. We are talking about not paying their bills. Hospitals are already required to administer emergency care regardless of your answers to financial questions. The care just isn't paid for by tax payers, it's the receipient of the care who pays the bill, as it should be.

Re:What part of illegal don't you understand?

[mrbrown1602]

Uh... no. There is nothing in the constitution that limits the power of Congress to restrict the immigration of persons. Just because John Adams said that if you're here, you're a citizen doesn't mean its law. Times change, and when the great immigration of the 1900s began, we had to start limiting immigration.

Do you support the state using open source/linux

[scupper]

Does Georgy support the state government adopting the use of open source software and operating systems like Linux?

Fiscal Dicipline??

[foooo]

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.

Re:Fiscal Dicipline??

[sweatyboatman]

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??

Actually, instead of competing on price (generally through cost cutting and reducing quality) the hospitals and clinics would compete by increasing quality and becoming more efficient. Because patients dont pay they would be most attracted to those places that offer the most attractive services.

It wouldn't provide anyone with the highest level of care, but it would (potentially) guarantee that everyone receives treatment sufficient to their needs.

Of course, humans being the way they are, there'd also be competition over who can best defraud the government into believing they deserve more than they do.

Re:Fiscal Dicipline??

[gfxguy]

It wouldn't provide anyone with the highest level of care, but it would (potentially) guarantee that everyone receives treatment sufficient to their needs.

And this is why socialism fails - their is no incentive to be the best (the incentive being money), the incentive is to be adequate.

The places that are considered the best now will not have to improve, they'll have millions of poor people lined up at the door. They will be overburdened even if they wanted to improve. Doctors will get some about based on how many people were treated, it puts people through the mill - meanwhile, where's the doctors incentive to reasearch? Oh! That's right, in socialism, the government will pay. And you think that helps? Now, instead of the richest people going to the best doctors to subsidize research, all the poor people will be forced to help pay, too.

Meanwhile, the richest people will go to other states for the "best" care.

Of course, humans being the way they are, there'd also be competition over who can best defraud the government into believing they deserve more than they do.

Truer words were never spoken, but I seem to sense an implication that it's the doctors who will want to do the defrauding - the truth is that whenever and wherever a system can be abused, it will be. There is not one "social" program created by the government that has not been abused.

Re:Fiscal Dicipline??

[Hittite Creosote]

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

Universal health care and fiscal discipline exist simultaneously in a number of countries in the world. Britain's health service has an internal market of sorts, so there is some form of competition in place. So in response, I'd ask you - if other countries can do it, why can't the US?

Not that the British NHS works well these days. But it's still better than the US system.

Whole story an excuse for a thinkgeek plug

[Anonymous Coward]

I can find nothing 'geek' about this candidate. I am left with the impression the entire posting was an excuse to include another plug for thinkgeek.

Re:Whole story an excuse for a thinkgeek plug

[bhtooefr]

MOD PARENT UP!

I noticed that her only hobby is dancing. A geek would (unless she wanted to hide it, which would not make her a true geek unless she were still in elementary/middle/high school) say computers...

Re:Whole story an excuse for a thinkgeek plug

[bhtooefr]

Take that back. Look at the second pic. There's a linux book on the windowsill.

Here you go

[geekoid]

What will you do to help keep IT jobs in CA?

Spammers

[GnuVince]

Do you indend to go after spammers and bring them before justice?

"Honesty and Virtuous Politicians"

[Nova Express]

>This whole situation seems like a gross abuse of a recall system that relies on honesty and virtuous politicians.

"Must...control...laughter..."

"HAHAHAHAHAHA! Hahahahahaha! Ha. Ha. Oh boy, that's a good one."

Neither California's recall system nor any other democratic institution in the United States has ever relied on "honesty and virtuous politicians." Our system of checks and balances assumes that if one branch of the government gets out of line, the other two can check it. If the Republic had depended on "honesty and virtuous politicians" to run government, it would have collapsed sometime shortly after George Washington left office.

The California recall provisions are perfectly legal, perfectly constitutional, and were followed to the letter. If Gray Davis were not such a manifestly incompetent and corrupt weasel, it would have been impossible to gather the 1 million+ signatures the recall provision did. The poster evidently believes that California voters should have let their state's economy be completely destroyed rather than avail themselves of the perfectly legal recall mechanism available to remove Gray Davis from power.

Recalls are far less of a threat to the Republic than unelected judiciaries legislating from the bench, or regulatoruy agencies that issue dictates to the American public that were never passed by Congress or signed by the President. Those are the mechanisms that have most eroded representative democracy, not recall provisions.

Re:"Honesty and Virtuous Politicians"

[RevMike]

If the Republic had depended on "honesty and virtuous politicians" to run government, it would have collapsed sometime shortly after George Washington left office.

I must differ on this. John Adams was quite honest and virtuous. Hamilton and Jefferson were responsible for letting party politics get in the way of the public good.

Possibly too poisonous to answer, but

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you explain how the world's 5th largest economy with one of the world's best educated workforces can possibly be in the position of taking seriously as candidates an Austrian actor with no real political experience or community links on the one hand, and a Greek freeloader ditto on the other? How can anyone who clearly has a brain even be considering trying to get a job which involves trying to keep such a dysfunctional electorate happy?

A REAL GIRL??? My question-

[jaysones]

A/S/L?

Re:A REAL GIRL??? My question-

[CitznFish]

damnit...water through my nose and all over my workstation.. =P

Re:A REAL GIRL??? My question-

[Anonymous Coward]

RTFA, dumbass. 26/F/Oakland, CA. I learned that by RTFAing. And it's not even /.ed!

Re:A REAL GIRL??? My question-

[jaysones]

RTFComment, idiot. It was clearly a joke.

Voting behavior

[NMerriam]

As we've seen in the lead-up to the Iraq conflict, people seem to feel very strongly about celebrities becoming involved in divisive political issues.

Given that it is likely much of Arnold Schwarzenneger's electoral support will come simply from his celebrity status, do you feel it would be okay for people to vote for you simply because you are beautiful ( *and smart!* )?

Did Florez go far enough investigating Oracle?

[scupper]

Did Assemblyman Dean Florez go far enough with investigation the Oracle deal and Gray Davis prior to Speaker Wesson shutting him down?

Re:Did Florez go far enough investigating Oracle?

[scupper]

Report blasts oversight of contracts
Mercury News ^ | 8/20/02 | Dion Nissenbaum

SACRAMENTO - A special team of investigators has found that poor oversight of state contracts contributed to abuse in the system and called Monday for revamping the process that came under severe scrutiny during this year's Oracle scandal.

After three months of review, a draft report prepared for a special governor's task force called for new oversight of computer projects and red flagging high-risk contracts for special scrutiny. But it did not embrace elimination of the disputed no-bid system that allows billions of state dollars to be spent with little oversight.

``They are suggesting that instead of reinventing the wheel, maybe putting some new spokes on it,'' said Robb Deignan, a spokesman for the state Department of General Services, which produced the draft report.

Assemblyman Dean Florez, the Bakersfield Democrat who led the Legislature's review of the Oracle scandal, called the recommendations ``a good start,'' but said there were still loopholes that need to be closed.

``There are some good things in here, but we still need a better system,'' Florez said.

The proposals are the latest effort by the Davis administration to restore public confidence in the state contracting process that came under fire following a Mercury News investigation of the Oracle contract.

Oracle and the Davis administration agreed to cancel the $95 million to $123 million deal after state auditors determined that the contract could force California to spend millions on software it didn't need. The scandal also led to the firing of three state officials involved in the deal and elimination of the state's technology department.

In May, Davis imposed a temporary ban on most no-bid contracts and created a special panel to review the process.

On Monday, state investigators concluded that the current system is rife with problems and needs to be changed. Poor oversight prevents the state from even figuring out exactly how much it spends on state contracts and services. The report estimated that California spent at least $7.4 billion for goods, services and technology projects in a recent 12-month period.

More than a quarter of the money was distributed through disputed programs that allow the state to hand out contracts to companies without going through the normal competitive bidding process.

Instead of calling for elimination of the process, the report suggested that the state revamp the rules and impose more oversight of the program.

The report called on the state to:

• Ensure that major technology projects are competitively bid by preventing them from going through the more lax channels.
• Place specially trained officials in state agencies who would be charged with approving contracts worth up to $1 million.
• Red-flag high-risk contacts, including all technology service contracts worth more than $200,000, for intense legal scrutiny
• Write new laws that would allow the state to fire officials or suspend companies that break the rules.

After receiving the report Monday, the panel asked the investigators to spend a little more time working on their proposals and come back with final recommendations.

Thought experiment

[cybermace5]

Hi Georgy;

Can you do a little thought experiment for us? I think it would provide some insight into your understanding of your opponents and the issues.

I want you to play devil's advocate for a moment, and imagine yourself in turn as the candidate for the Democrats, Republicans, and Green Party. What would your issues be, and what tactics would you use to gain the governorship?

Probably a tall order, but I think it would really highlight your grasp of the issues and political climate.

Re:Thought experiment

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably a tall order, but I think it would really highlight your grasp of the issues and political climate.

Or lack thereof. Heh.

Electricity, brown outs, bad contracts

[CitznFish]

What plans do you have to ensure California does not become victim to corrput utility companies, suffer any further brown outs, and recind the ridiculous power contracts signed by Gray Davis? We can't survive on UPS backups any longer!

Oh shut the fuck up.

[Anonymous Coward]

And don't think for a moment that there won't be another recall election next year for whatever asshat Republican wins this one.

Re:Oh shut the fuck up.

[FroMan]

Yeah, but will the folks complaining that recall is wrong be pushing for that next year? That is the question, are all the dems who are saying recalls are morally wrong this year going to say next year what the republicans/everyone else is saying this year?

I would expect lots of hypocracy next year. The winner of the recall might even claim next year that recalls are bad.

Re:Oh shut the fuck up.

[Daetrin]

It's not called hypocrisy, it's called "turn about is fair play"

I wouldn't have considered issuing a recall for a Republican governor who won fairly before this whole fiasco. I'll probably be willing to let bygones be bygones if the recall fall flat on it's face. However if it wins, i'll be first in line to sign the next recall petition for a Republican governor, fair or not.

Republicans like to talk about Democrats being whiney pushovers, such Democrats may exist, i don't really know, but i'm sure not one of them. I think the recall is stupid and unfair, but if the Republicans want to make that the rules of the games, then i'm not going to shy away from playing too.

Sure, it'll probably lead to a cycle of destruction as California spends all it's time and money on recall after recall, but these days there's a part of me that says, so what? Republicans seem to think that nothing they do is going to have unintended negative effects, well fine. Maybe we should just sit back and let the Republicans have their way and see how long they manage to hold things together. If everything works out well, great, we were wrong, isn't it swell that we don't need to worry about it. If not, at least we'll have the laugh last as we choke on poisonous fumes while the oceans flood our cities.

If we try and prevent disater, those who oppose us only laugh at us and say there was nothing to worry about if we succeed.

Not only that....

[Toasty981]

You're right, that's the big issue here: Their children are citizens and are free to leech off taxpayers, often without providing anything in return.

But the parent is wrong in that they "stay under the radar". Immigration is such a huge problem that states like Texas and California don't even bother enforcing it anymore. The immigrants do in fact use state services, as evidenced by today's
New York Times article about Arnold's candidacy:

"Mr. Torres reminded voters on "This Week" with George Stephanopoulos that Mr. Schwarzenegger had once stumped for Mr. Wilson, the sponsor of Proposition 187, a successful ballot initiative barring illegal immigrants from receiving state services. The measure was eventually struck down in state appellate court."

Obviously there is no need for a bill banning the existence of a problem that supposedly doesn't exist, right?

Re:Not only that....

[Toasty981]

Doh! I meant that I wanted to add to your statement about "staying under the radar"...

Re:Not only that....

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously there is no need for a bill banning the existence of a problem that supposedly doesn't exist, right?

Are you an immigrant? You are apparently unfamiliar with the way American electoral politics work....

Re:Not only that....

[Toasty981]

Heh. True enough :)

At least in this case though, there was/are a lot of problems with immigrants using state services, and this was a response to that. The proposition was pretty heavily publicized, it seems likely it was the inspiration behind the Simpsons "Prop 10" (or whatever it was) episode.

Your qualifications

[nbahi15]

How much did your last major motion picture gross?

If you win the election...

[jd]

...will you make Tux the State Stuffy?

Is electrinic voting secure?

[RNLockwood]

The vulnerability of electronic voting systems to fraud has been discussed in tech circles but has caught the attention of almost no one in political office. For instance Riverside County and other counties now use electronic voting systems and Los Angeles County, among others, is poised to implement electronic voting. It appears that the county politicians are ignoring the issues of fraud and hacking. Then there is the issue if the machines can be configured to handle 150+ candidates.

What is your opinion of the suitability of electronic voting in California elections?

Catch Phrase

[BlindSpot]

What is your catch phrase?

You'll need a damn good one in order to compete with Mr. Schewarzenegger!

Dot Bomb?

[MikeFM]

What would you, as Governor, do to help the economy recover and grow? What would you do to restart California's lead as the technology capital of the world and recreate the jobs that have been lost in recent years?

Yeah it's fair, and Davis will go!

[siskbc]

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.

Re:Yeah it's fair, and Davis will go!

[Martin Blank]

No Democrat-registered voters voted for Simon in the Republican primary, because California does not allow that. You may vote only for your own party nomination, not for any other, with the exception of people who chose "Decline to State", who may choose from any of the party ballots for those parties which accept voters registered as such. There was a process in place that allowed an open primary, but that was shot down in court as an abridgment of the right to free assembly by forcing the party to accept those with whom they don't agree.

However, Davis DID run a campaign targeting Riordan, nominally telling the public that he was prone to flipping back and forth on issues, but concentrating on his pro-choice, pro-gay, pro-environment stances in an effort to get the most conservative Republicans to vote for Simon (a true nitwit) instead.

Davis's budgets were submitted on time, but left alone things like the state prison guard union. BTW, he received $119,500 from Enron and its employees from 1996 to early 2002. Can't find immediate numbers on Cisco, but I know that one of its upper-level people donated $25K to his campaign last year.

Re:Yeah it's fair, and Davis will go!

[siskbc]

No Democrat-registered voters voted for Simon in the Republican primary, because California does not allow that. You may vote only for your own party nomination, not for any other, with the exception of people who chose "Decline to State", who may choose from any of the party ballots for those parties which accept voters registered as such.

I suspect quite a few people from both parties refrained from registering so as to get around that loophole. Why wouldn't you, as an interested voter, want to have as much political participation as possible? Lots of Dems voted in the Republican primary, believe it. And that had a big role in Riordan losing. Everyone knew he was the stronger candidate, except the *truly* stupid.

However, Davis DID run a campaign targeting Riordan, nominally telling the public that he was prone to flipping back and forth on issues, but concentrating on his pro-choice, pro-gay, pro-environment stances in an effort to get the most conservative Republicans to vote for Simon (a true nitwit) instead.

Exactly - and I see that as a subversion of the normal political processs. Davis flat-out bought that election.

Davis's budgets were submitted on time, but left alone things like the state prison guard union. BTW, he received $119,500 from Enron and its employees from 1996 to early 2002. Can't find immediate numbers on Cisco, but I know that one of its upper-level people donated $25K to his campaign last year.

They were submitted on time, but not approved, as I recall - I see that as part of a governor's job, getting that sort of thing through the assembly. Good numbers on Enron - I can't decide if he's dirty there, or just the dumbest person alive. Either way, shouldn't be governor. As for Cisco, that was flat-out graft.

So ultimately, I find it a bit disingenious of Davis to claim that the process has been circumvented (despite the fact that recall of a governor is quite clearly outlined), when he bought the election in the first place.

Re:Yeah it's fair, and Davis will go!

[Martin Blank]

I don't think there were as many as you might think, though with the normal turnouts in this state, I wouldn't be surprised if they made up a few percentage points. However, I think Riordan lost it early on because of the short-sightedness of the California Republican Party who for the last few years has been putting up as many people as possible who are "true" to the platform, not realizing that, outside of a handful of counties, those positions just don't fly with voters. Riordan not only was a great balance for California, but he was able to become a Republican mayor of Los Angeles, possibly one of the most liberal cities outside of the Bay Area, and was able to work with the city council there amicably and effectively.

Right now, I'm looking at Arnold for governor now, and I hope he'll turn things over to Riordan in the next election. That would be a good 11-year block.

This country was built by immegrants ok Dick.

[Anonymous Coward]

This entire country was built by immegrants since day one.

You acting like a scared englishmen when a flood italians, germans, poles and chinamen started hitting the shores.

That worked alright for the country didn't it?

Immegrants have always been what made American strong.

If you have balls to walk across miles of hot desert sand or sail across the pacific in a freight container and risk being deported the second you reach the border just so your children can have a bright future shows you are prepared to put in the hard work needed to contribute to society.

Now as for 3rd generation flops like yourself who are so lazy and feel like they are entitled to everything just because they where born here and the big bad immegrants are muscling in on the territory, I say: Welcome to America.

Floods of immegrants legal or illegal really is as American as apple pie my friend...

Re:This country was built by immegrants ok Dick.

[Anonymous Coward]

IMMIGRANTS, but NOT *illegal* immigrants.

Jesus you people are SO fucking dense.

Re:This country was built by immegrants ok Dick.

[Anonymous Coward]

The main reason that immegration from Mexico is hard to legally is because people need the labor to be cheap.

If they are legals then they can form unions, demand minimum wage and basic safety measures on the job.

We wouldn't want that now would we?

So if you agree that immegrants keep America strong then maybe you should be pushing for relaxed immegration laws instead of being a racist and blame brown foreigners for ruining America.

(Last time I checked most of America's problems actually came from greedy old white men...)

It wasn't some evil mexican laborer who was causing the energy crisis in California, it was a bunch of patriotic all american white folks.

The budget

[Wellspring]

What is your plan to deal with the current budgetary mess in California? To what extent do you plan on raising taxes and/or cutting services? And which programs will be cut and where?

I realize that these are specific and uncomfortable questions to ask, but California is in the midst of a major budgetary crisis, and any Governor will have to make specific and unpleasant choices to deal with it. So far, the answer the current Governor has chosen has been to pick and blame political opponents.

Will show platform/OS Favoratism? What about Apple

[adzoox]

Are you Democrat or Republican or Independent?

Do you believe Linux is an answer to the state's database organization and paper beaurocracy problem?

How will you also NOT show favoratism and make sure money is available for schools that want or NEED Apple Computers?

California schools must suck

[Anonymous Coward]

if you were the result of one. You might try an English as a second language class sometime.

Gubernatorial qualifications

[mkweise]

and knows how to run Linux

Are you saying Mr. Schwarzenegger doesn't? You really shouldn't be implying that he runs Windows at home unless you can back that up. He really doesn't strike me as the Windows type...I'd say it's much more likely he runs OS X.

Question

[focitrixilous P]

Georgy Russell,
What do you plan to do about the trolls on slashdot. They are really annoying, and a tough law against goatse.cx and other related troll and offtopic behavior would be greatly appreciated. Also, do any other canidates know what a blog is. Good luck with your campaign.

protect the state from theft

[fermion]

In the past, your state allowed a few special interests to rewrite your laws concerning energy regulation, which subsequently allowed a couple rednecks from Texas to steal billions of dollars from your citizens and in the process bring California to it's knees.

A similar situation, with less disastrous effect, occurred with Oracle. What are your plans to protect your state and it's cities from such special interests in the future.

Re:protect the state from theft

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a myth that has already been debunked. If the energy companies had been able to "rewrite [their] laws concerning energy regulation," they would not have deregulated producers and kept suppliers heavily regulated. Mod parent down.

Re:protect the state from theft

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason CA is paying high rates for out-of-state power is CA was too short sited to build any power plants for the last 15 years. Experiments in deregulation were cooincidental.

Re:protect the state from theft

[fermion]

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

Another trader pleads guilty.

Fastow indicted in defrauding California PERS

The Texas PUC recommends that Enron pay $7 million for manipulating power prices in Texas
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

Energy Security

[QuackQuack]

While your interest in green energy is laudible, let's be honest here, these technologies are not as mature and cost effective as traditional power generation means.

As governor, will you insist on clean energy at the risk these never get built or are built in an insufficient number, or would you be willing to compromise and build fossil and/or nuclear plants to ensure that the 2001 fiasco which cost CA billions is never repeated?

Re:Energy Security

[Anonymous Coward]

And why do you fail to realize that there was plenty of energy available, but for Enron shutting down plants to create artificial scarcity?

Re:Energy Security

[Anonymous Coward]

Renewable energy is reducing in price with increasing scale. In the case of California, it would also move a significant proportion of energy production to an in-state system which is less polluting and not a potential security risk (as nuclear clearly has to be considered). Furthermore, solar panels can be used on a local basis - solar panels on the roofs of the buildings that have all that air conditioning California needs. California is as blessed with the sun as the UK is (cursed?) with wind, and the UK government has planned to spend 6 billion on offshore wind farms. If the 4th largest economy in the world can do this, why can't the 5th?

Also a major cause of California's energy problems was that the energy market there (unlike, say, the UK) was not dynamic. Regulators prevented suppliers buying power on long term contracts, and as a result there was no trigger to build new plants.

What planet is she from?

[grendel's mom]

She states in her 'open letter:'
"This week, the President of the United States will raise twenty million dollars for his re-election campaign. Almost all of this will come from the wealthy beneficiaries of his annual tax cuts."
Who does she think gave the Democrates almost $450 million last year? The poor? The blue collar workig class? *bzzzzt* wrong. Who gave Hillary Clinton $30 million? She's deluded...or incredibly ignorant.

Re:What planet is she from?

[QuackQuack]

Hey give her a break! She's only 26, so all she knows is what they taught her at UC Berkley, she'll need more time before she learns how the world really works.

Re:What planet is she from?

[jester]

She's from Venus ... so stop bashing her

Re:What planet is she from?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm, who gave Democrats money? Let's try Municipal Workers, Service Employees, Carpenters and Joiners, Communications Workers and Teachers. What, haven't you heard of Union donations?

Re:What planet is she from?

[grendel's mom]

Unions gave approximately $31.1 million out of $450.3 million to the Democratic Party in 2002. That's less than 7%. I suggest you check opensecrets.org again and look more closely at who is funding the democratic party. You've missed quite a bit. Secondly, the *unions* are funding democrats...NOT individuals themselves. Being a union member, I have no significant say in who my union funds are donated to. In fact, the president of my local union has basically ZERO influence in how *our* money is donated. None. If anyone actually believes "the wealthy" are not funding the democrats as well, they have their eyes closed. Just look at the primary sources of donations...

Transport policy

[Anonymous Coward]

Transport is one of the biggest issues in the state today. California stands as an example to the rest of the world not only of how NOT to move people from A to B, but how not to position A and B in the first place.

Short-sighted planners still cling to the unbelievably outdated notion that you can reduce traffic congestion by building more roads and making existing ones wider. Are you aware of the phenomenon of 'induced traffic' or will you allow this destructive and self-defeating practice of runaway road-building to continue unopposed? Will you strive to overcome the political wrangling that has hampered efforts to build a European style high-speed rail link from San Francisco to Los Angeles?

Single-use zoning laws have led to the vandalism of California's built environment. It has transformed her 'cites' into a vast, ugly sprawl of strip malls, gas stations and fast food drive-thrus. Building a pedestrian-friendly city is well nigh illegal in most places. Will you speak out against the malling and sprawling of the west and advocate the growing North American movement known as 'new urbanism?'

Thanks.

Re:Transport policy

[W. Justice Black]

Single-use zoning laws have led to the vandalism of California's built environment. It has transformed her 'cites' into a vast, ugly sprawl of strip malls, gas stations and fast food drive-thrus.

This from someone who obviously has never been to, say, Dallas. Dallas is the sort of place where planners decided that large swath of land X (i.e. a few square miles) would be best suited for gas stations while swath Y would be best suited for Fast Food, etc., etc. The result: Huge traffic jams while people struggle to get gas in the only section of town that has it, then traffic getting to work (the areas of which again are concentrated), then huge traffic getting to the KFC where you grab dinner on the way home (because the traffic has kept you from having the time to cook a proper meal), then ... You get the idea.

I've mostly lived in Phoenix (which is planned reasonably well, though it is in full-sprawl-mode), and in Silicon Valley, and I must say it's not that bad, considering the constraints we have. While I think it rediculous that I'm a well-paid tech worker and still don't have a prayer of owning a house here (and am not willing to live in Sacramento or Hollister and commute), it's important to remember that most techies will eventually burn out and need to do something else at some point==moving elsewhere anyway in all likelihood.

If you want a real city to live in, there's always San Francisco. Knock yourself out. In the meantime, California's got bigger problems that need fixing.

Re:Transport policy

[Anonymous Coward]

San Francisco's okay, the weather puts me off moving up there. I live in Silicon Valley and being from Europe I can tell you it's riddiculous that if I'm sitting in my house and need something as small as a stamp to post a letter, I have to strap myself into my vehicle and drive a couple of miles to the nearest 'convenience store' (an oxymoron if ever there was). Kinda defeats the purpose of living in a city, which should be that everything is close to hand where you need it. You've even reinforced my point about how you have to drive to satisfy even the most trivial everyday needs throughout the day.

Traffic in this place is getting out of hand, the built environment is unbelievably ugly, children have to be chauffered around by their parents every time they want to do something, and oil consumption is at stratospheric levels that are affecting foreign policy and national security as well as the environment. People are leaving the state in droves and traffic congestion is up there among the reasons for it. 'More important things that need fixing?' I don't think so!

Re:Transport policy

[Anonymous Coward]

By the way, I never said that California is the only place where single-use zoning has led to the problems of sprawl. I'm well aware that it goes on elsewhere in the US thank you very much.

from the site

[geekoid]

" other states diligently work to create communities in which fairness paves the way"

name two.

"Our once progressive state now stands behind leaders like Maine, Arizona, and Vermont on the issues that most affect Californians. "

such as...? Are you saying we need to pass the 'UCITA' bill in CA, like they did in vermont?

" We can reform the California criminal justice system, second only to Texas in its executions and prison populations. "

interesting statement. what exactly are you saying? that we need more executions or less?

Finally:

If you were not smart enough to perpare for the slashdot effect, why would you expect us to have any trust that you can have any forward thinking?

Re:from the site

[swordgeek]

On behalf of Ms. Russell, let me address your points.

Other states: She lists Arizona and Maine.

" The death penalty kills innocent people and costs the state more money than life imprisonment. These are the inescapable facts that make this Californian legacy not just questionable on moral grounds, but bad policy as well." Seems pretty clear to me.

As for the /. effect, her system got bogged down heavily and came back up within five minutes. How exactly do you deal with HUGE traffic spikes, withoug leasing a pipe 10-20x fatter (and more expensive) than you need 95+% of the time?

In other words, do some fucking research before flaming!

Your site is slashdotted

[Albanach]

How would you demonstrate that you'll be more resistant to the demands of an election (and those of holding office) than your webserver?

I never used pot .

[pr0ntab]

And I've never reached my full potential either. Meanwhile I'm still a virgin who never parties, and I'm sad and frustrated.

All that being said Russel for Governor! I don't even live in California!

Re:I never used pot .

[AgentPhunk]

And I've never reached my full potential either. Meanwhile I'm still a virgin who never parties, and I'm sad and frustrated.

Yes, Gary Coleman, we all know that you're glory years have long since past. However, you should revel in your Dick Clark(tm) like eternal youth.

Who would pay for high prices without cheap labor?

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? Don't draw from any social programs? Who pays for their medical care? Who pays when they end up in the emergency room? Who pays all the cops that do arrest the ones that eventually get tossed out? Who pays for the INS? Who pays for all the beauracracy involved in handling the complaints of the ranchers on the border who have their land trespassed on all the time?

Yes, but the money you save on the price of cheaply produced goods using illegal labor is fine with you no doubt eh?

That patriotic GOD BLESS USA tee-shirt you got for 5$ would probably cost $20 if some illegal immegrant didn't make it in a sweatshop in LA.

Election spoiler

[dpille]

My apologies if this question is asked above in non-modded-up comments. I like it, though:

How do you feel about the possibility that you as a candidate (as well as those that vote for you) could be tarred with the same brush as Nader in 2000, namely, that you 'gave' the recall election to someone distasteful to the accuser, merely by being less distasteful but still participating? What do you think this says about democracy in California and the US when so many individual candidates could be similarly accused?

Re:Election spoiler

[welshsocialist]

I think most of /. is missing the rationale of question #2. According to the CA SoS, There are over 100 candidates who have made the ballot. If my thinking is correct, a candidate could win with 25%-30% of the vote. In this case, there are no spoilers.

Really what are you trying to prove?

[mhandlon]

After reading over the views and opinions of all the candidates I have to admit I like yours the best and in a perfect world you would be elected. But, in the real world elections aren't about political viewpoints and intelligence their about popularity. So, why even bother?

I'm not a California resident but even if I was I would have to vote for Arnold... just for the fact he's Arnold. I'm 22, though I'm lazy and haven't exercised my voting privileges in this lifetime yet, if I did get off my ass, I couldn't ever look another man in the eye again if I didn't vote for him. I can't count all the nights of enjoyment he's brought us drinking beer and watching action movies.

He's the badass of our generation if the law was changed and he could be elected president he would; total landslide. I mean who would fuck with us... Fidel Castro? Yasser Arafat? We wouldn't need the army Bush likes to use so much. Arnold could go and crush them all himself... well not really but who would you talk back to him? No one exactly!

On top of all this, every time he says "California" everyone laughs and he gains another 1% of the vote. Thinking of him being elected and doing this all the time makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside. I can't wait until I hear him say it on TV when I'm high.

So what point are you trying to prove... because deep down you have to know you really can't win? I got $100 on it though that you will get a greater percentage of the vote then Venus Williams.

Maybe in Utah or somewhere else you would have a grain of hope but come one California save your money and try another state.

Re:Really what are you trying to prove?

[swordgeek]

Oh, great. So you're a lazy useless fuck who can't be bothered to get off his ass, but if you could you'd vote for a candidate you didn't agree with because he's cool.

Worse, when someone comes along and wants to work intelligently to reform the system and make democracy work, you tell them to quit wasting their time. After all, our hero Arnie will save the day. (Do you honestly think Arafat gives a fuck about some actor??!)

No wonder your country is so messed up. Please stay away from elections. The fewer people like you who vote, the better.

Re:Really what are you trying to prove?

[mhandlon]

Everything I said was true and you damn well know it. Don't hand me that crap.... And Arnold hasn't even come out with his official political stands on the issues. But everything from high school student console to the presidential office is about who is more popular... who can relate to the people, who do the people think is cool.

Of course Arafat doesn't give a fuck about that.... I was just making a sarcastic point on how the general public views Arnold. He is the hero of the 20 something late teen generations... which is also the percentage of the population most likely to not get off their ass and vote.

So what, I didn't vote in the last election basically because I could give a fuck less if Bush or Gore got elected... they are both a joke. Gore lost my vote with the internet thing and well Bush he's proved to be an idiot. I'm glad I can say I can't be blamed one way or the other for their fuckups.

Also anytime a "geek" girl with 1/2 a brain who you can rate above a 2* (aka, Wildebeast) Slashdot just on that train faster then the captain of the cheerleading team takes off her prom dress.

Re:Really what are you trying to prove?

[twilson650]

"faster then the captain of the cheerleading team takes off her prom dress" How could a person posting on slashdot possibly know how fast that is?

Re:Really what are you trying to prove?

[mhandlon]

Due to funding issues Northern Illinois University combined the Computer Science and Psychology buildings. That with a little belligerence and debauchery, being an asshole, getting drunk a lot (being a fun person to be around), and taking shitty electives that require a lot of bullshit writing but have other perks; anything is possible.

Re:Really what are you trying to prove?

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, you really need to get your shit together and get a life.

Re:Really what are you trying to prove?

[swordgeek]

I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying that glorifying (which you do) does nothing to fix the situation. YOU are part of the PROBLEM, and you're using that as an excuse to piss away your responsibilities.

YOU are the fault that Bush got in, and that Gore was the best alternative. Not "the system," not "the blind sheep," but YOU!

Now grow up and fix your country before you destroy the rest of the world.

Re:Really what are you trying to prove?

[Anonymous Coward]

What's so damned great about the rest of the world that we should bother doing anything to *not* destroy it?

You're not citizens, you don't pay taxes, you don't do much of anything except whine and bitch and moan and complain about things beyond your control.

As if the world would be a much better place if *insert former EU colonial power here* had retained their brutal and bloody empire and still ruled the world today.

Mind own own damned business and we'll mind ours.

Re:Really what are you trying to prove?

[mhandlon]

I can't argue with that... other then the part of Gore being the better alternative. Come on after the whole "I invented the internet" thing how could anyone vote for him.

Re:Really what are you trying to prove?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Mind own own damned business and we'll mind ours."

Um, that was the exact point. The US is currently minding everyone ELSE's business, except their own.

Cool

[jefu]

You do look like an interesting candidate and if I lived in California I'd very likely vote for you.

Since I don't live in California and dont have a lot of disposable income at the nonce, do you have any suggestions for people who might like to support you using the internet?

However things go, I hope you have fun, learn cool things, meet interesting people, tweak the noses of all those in need of nose tweaking and generally say the things that need to be said.

Good luck!

Now here's a need for meta-moderation!

[HarveyBirdman]

A post where every statement is easily shown to be false with widely avaialble data, and it's modded up as insightful. C'mon SlashDot, y'all are better than this, surely. It's got to be a troll who got his buddies to mod him up or something.

I mean one of them doesn't even make sense. They aren't avoiding property taxes because they don't own property? That's a complete neutral. It's like praising children or renters or citizens of Bangladesh for not avoiding paying their California property taxes.

Well behaved as possible? Nearly 1/3 of drug trafficking arrests involve illegals. Personally I'd legalize the drugs, but don't trot out some sort of fantasy world of saintly illegals doing no wrong.

Don't cost anything? Talk to an emergency room employee some day. Talk to the overwhelmed government drones who investigate all the fraud the illegals commit.

You gotta be a troll...

Arnold, Arnold, and Larry

[marmot1101]

Do you think that the recently announced campaigns of Arnold Schwarzenegger, Gary Coleman, Larry Flint, plus many other semi qualified candidates will improve Davis's chance of not being recalled? Will the thought of Larry Flint being elected with a tiny percentage be enough to scare the voters into blocking the recall?

Re:Arnold, Arnold, and Larry

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know, I'm voting for Larry myself.

If it's going to be such a clown circus, why not vote in the biggest clown?

[X] No on insanely supid recall.
[X] Yes for Larry Flynt in case stupidity truly takes over take it all the way!

Hell the vote FOR deregulation of the energy industry which we are STILL all paying through the nose for was frankly stupid beyond belief, so Ca has already been there! Ah'nold is a stupid choice, but flynt is stupider. Go all the way!

SUYT!

[Call Me Black Cloud]

Oh sorry, that should be a question.

Would you please SUYT? Thank you.

Re:SUYT!

[Anonymous Coward]

SUYT? shut up you tramp?

Re:SUYT!

[Anonymous Coward]

Show Us Your Tits

Well...

[Gerad]

how much do you think your bandwidth bill is going to be after your webserver is slashdotted? ;)

Issue not addressed on website

[b-pot]

This issue doesn't matter to the average californian but it will make or break my support of you.

Will you marry me? :)

Oxymoron

[killmenow]

oxymoron
Pronunciation: (ok"si-mor'on, -mOr'-), n., a figure of speech by which a locution produces an incongruous, seemingly self-contradictory effect, as in "virtuous politicians"

Dear Arnie:

[pr0ntab]

Despite being Mr. Universe and having married a Kennedy, what other qualifications and leadership experience do you have to politically lead the fifth largest economy of the world?

Re:Dear Arnie:

[gfxguy]

I know you're trying to be funny, but Arnold is a very saavy businessman, not only in the film industry but in others as well (real estate is a big one, AFAIK).

I personally think he's pretty devious, but there's nothing in his record that would make him less able than anyone, and there's a lot of things that make him more able.

Glad I'm not a Californian.

Participation or Representation?

[Infonaut]

Given that the governor of California (whomever that will wind up being) only has the authority to influence about 30% of the state's budget (because the rest of it has already been earmarked by ballot measures over the years - per The Economist), do you think that ANY governor can actually have much of a positive effect on the economic situation in California?

Also, do you feel that the elected governor is assisted or confounded by the slew of ballot initiatives that come through every election cycle? If elected, would you seek to expand this participatory government because it empowers the people, keep it at the same level, or rein it in because it makes effective long-term strategy so difficult?

The real question is of course

[reidhoch]

Thong or Granny panties?

How does it feel...

[Valiss]

How does it feel being called the 'Geek Candidate' for California Governor?

ROTFLMAO (seriously) mod up +funny, have pity.

[pr0ntab]

n/t

Are you going to revoke...

[Anonymous Coward]

...the California anti-bestiality law? That would surely earn you all the votes of mare lovers out there!

RIAA vs. America n/a at state level

[RobertB-DC]

What are your views on the RIAA's recent actions to protect their copyrights?

Although it's a cool question, I doubt this one will make the cut. Copyright law is a federal issue, not a state issue.

Contract law, on the other hand, is indeed written at the state level. In September 2001, artists from Courtney Love to LeeAnn Rimes testified in Sacramento about artists' rights issues. Also in the state capitol that day were the Dixie Chicks, before they became a hot political topic for other reasons.

A unique opportunity

[Kref1]

This could be a very good opportunity for techs to take over California. In the last major election (presidential 2000) approximately 11 million California residents (http://www.gwu.edu/~action/states/ca.htm) voted, if those types of numbers hold up, a relatively small percentage of the population could control the destiny of the state. With almost 200 candidates in the race, the winner of the vote (assuming people decide to recall Davis) will probably be elected with a small number of votes (30% may be enough to win). So with roughly 3e6 votes, anyone could become governor. If Slashdot and other tech crowds could make enough noise about a single candidate that cares about tech issues, they very well could be able to swing the election.

Re:A unique opportunity

[El]

136 == "almost 200"???

Re:A unique opportunity

[Kref1]

Latest count was 193, i would consider that almost 200 (3.5% off is close enought for most stuff).

(http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/ne ws /archive/2003/08/11/national1141EDT0516.DTL)

Re:A unique opportunity

[Anonymous Coward]

The LA Times reported that 158 candidates had filed by the deadline, so I don't know where 193 comes from.

There will likely be some reduction as the applications get reviewed, for instance if some of the signatures on a candidate's petition are invalidated.

Electronic voting machines

[Psyx]

Is California using electronic machines? If so we should be able to hack him into office!

Just imagine! Outlaw the RIAA. Create a DMCA free zone. Convert SCO to a state run enterprise and free linux. 802.11 at every intersection!

Really obvious question...

[jtnishi]

Pretty, and geeky. There's only one question that the legion of slashdotters must ask... Will you marry me? Please?

Main problem is left/right

[Thinkit3]

Geeks hate the inconsistency of left/right (oppose gun laws but support drug laws???). I can respect a true socialist.

You underestimate the power

[mykepredko]

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

Re:You underestimate the power

[Anonymous Coward]

But he has gone against aliens,

This is exactly what we're counting on but this is a different kind of alien, the illegal kind. They are not the source of all of my states (California) problems but are a very, very large chunk. Problem is everyone is scared to say it cause you're sure to be labled a racist resulting in the end of your political career. Since I mentioned the word race i better post anonymously now in this crowd.

Re:You underestimate the power

[DeltaSigma]

They'll just remind people that he played Mr. Freeze in Batman & Robin.

Re:You underestimate the power

[MrWa]

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.

You forgot to mention that he also gave birth in what is probably his most touching role ever - something that *I* find particularly heroic given that he is a "he".

Re:You underestimate the power

[Anonymous Coward]

some villians too ridiculous to mention

Ya, like a bunch of young children. Oh the pain is giving me a headache. It's not a tumor!!!

"You're okay, we're okay."

[babbage]

Would you agree that this whole recall circus, with its washed up sitcom stars, meathead body building "actors", and gleeful pornographers, is just some kind of collective attempt to make Minnesota feel better about itself after the whole "wow we just elected a pro wrestler" thing? If so, don't you maybe think there's such a thing as trying too hard? Surely you realize that this is well worn ground by now:

Let Jesse be Jesse...
...Somewhere else. Minnesota wanted a Governor. Now we're stuck with him
By Garrison Keillor

October 4, 1999
Web posted at: 12:29 p.m. EDT (1629 GMT)

Here in Minnesota, we are carrying on an experiment in democracy, having elected a Governor whom we can especially enjoy because only 37% voted for him and the rest of us are not responsible. This is something new in America, the ironic public servant.

[....]

Not to say that that Jesse Ventura did such a bad job or anything, but come on now -- two wrongs don't make a right.

In seriousness, this race is so fractured that anyone, even a computer geek, could end up winning. With that in mind, and with the nature of this circus in mind, wouldn't you be just a bit ashamed to win? The aftermath of this race is going to be nasty; the winner of the race is likely to be even more of an electoral loser than GWB was in 2000. The nation never got a proper reconciliation after that fiasco, but California will deserve one this time around. How do you intend to pull your fair state back together after this mess?

Incorrect.

[pr0ntab]

The densest concentration of technically literate people is
Chantilly, Virginia

Majority vs. Plurality

[PHoliday]

*bzzzzt*

Wrong. He got a plurality. A majority is 50% +1.

There's a huge difference there. First, let's remember that the national popular vote means nothing. Second, if it did, and had he needed a majority (and not a pluralty, which means having more votes than anyone else) perot (and everyone else) would've been booted from the race and there would've been a run off with the top two vote getters. That would've all but guaranteed a majority.

The recall vote and the vote for Davis' successor are two separate (but related) things. Discussing the fairness of one using the other is somewhat silly.

WOW...

[trifster]

This chick is not only smart but good looking too...

What's to stop...

[Coward the Anonymous]

the Lt. Govenor from organizing a recall so he can get the top job?

Having another election is a Good Thing.

Re:What's to stop...

[Randolpho]

Nothing at all. The question becomes how easy is it for him to organize a recall?

Too easy, IMO. The recall effort should be contained entirely in the legislature.

Re:What's to stop...

[Anonymous Coward]

the Lt. Govenor from organizing a recall so he can get the top job?


Can't have that. Organizing a recall in an attempt to steal the office is reserved for crooked Congressmen. (who don't realize that they aren't players untill it is too late.)

illegals do drain resources, but that's ! thepoint

[hakalugi]

a recent article in the WashPost summed it up:

-they're societal 'renters' meaning that like renters in your community, they have no long-term stakes in the property or the state of the community.
-many of them have a goal of making as much cash as possible, to take back to their own countries and live well.

and if you think that most illegals pay pay-roll taxes... i've got some sweeet Florida swampland to sell you. Sales tax is not enough to cover their drain on other benefits. They may not register for social programs under their name, but they often times share credentials for said services (at least here in DC it's a problem)

I'd rather have folks who plan on being here for a while, as they're less likely to: 1) litter, 2) mug/steal, 3) feel apathetic about our country.

Can you let project managers decide whats cheapest

[pr0ntab]

That's what they get paid to do, and open source is rather helpful, don't you worry your pretty little head.

The best tool for the job, I always say.

Where the business?

[HarveyBirdman]

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?

Re:Where the business?

[Anonymous Coward]

"If you are not willing to address this, nothing else matters."

I hope you're not serious. Business is only one aspect of life - it already holds too much power over our lives, IMHO.

Re:Where the business?

[Anonymous Coward]

"I'm afraid your statements have too much ideological content."

Yeah, because we all know ideology should be weakened or ignored as soon as it is inconvenient. Maybe she will lose, and maybe I'm just a fringe guy myself, but I respect someone more for losing on principle than winning on wishy-washyness, whether or not I agree with their platform.

Re:Where the business?

[HarveyBirdman]

I hope you're not serious.

I'm very serious. Nothing else matters unless you have the tax base to pay for all those pretty and feel-good programs. Without a healthy commercial and industrial sector, who do you tax? The citizens? Well, they're all out of work because all the businesses left. Now what? This is pretty basic stuff.

Business is only one aspect of life - it already holds too much power over our lives, IMHO.

Well, I didn't say it wasn't just one aspect- I said it was the most important when it comes to running an economy. Without it, nothing really else matters, because your state is *b*a*n*k*r*u*p*t*.

You're dragging in unrelated issues. This has nothing to do with the power of business over individuals, or prosecuting white collar crime, or privacy from the RIAA, or whatever it is you're alluding to here (I'm just guessing). It's simple economics. You have to make your state attractive to business, and you can do so in many ways without hurting the individual or trampling anyone else's rights. It's a vast and complicated issue, but not THAT difficult to navigate if you just keep your head about yourself.

Like I said, this automatic "business = evil" broad brush attitude has to stop, and, no, that does no mean allow businesses to commit crimes. It's one of the things that has led to the problems here in California. Davis and the Legislature either swung the balance pedulum to far against people trying to run businesses, or they favored the businesses that gave them the most money. You can argue these points, but they are all pretty well documented, even by media sources that are traditionally sympathetic to Democratic causes.

Whether you like Jack Kemp or not, he has a good spiel in which he describes how government is supposed to be the referee in the quest for balance between the public, commercial and private spheres. The problem too often is that the government has become the other team. In addition, the government controls the referees and can change the rulebook at will.

Re:Where the business?

[HarveyBirdman]

Yeah, because we all know ideology should be weakened or ignored as soon as it is inconvenient.

No, it should be criticized and then ignored when it is irrelevant. By "ideology" I mean exactly the stuff I mentioned in the two examples I gave. One boiled down to childish name calling, and the other intentionally lied to obfuscate an important issue. It's bullshit, and it's the prime factor in most of the misery that exists in the political arena. It seeks to do nothing but spark an emotional response rather than an intellectual one.

Ideologies are the enforcement of a cohesive paradigm irregardless of the facts or results of the individual. It is, by definition, inflexible and anti-reason in nature. In geek terms, it's the imposition of structured programming when an object oriented approach would be much better.

Maybe she will lose, and maybe I'm just a fringe guy myself, but I respect someone more for losing on principle than winning on wishy-washyness, whether or not I agree with their platform.

I actually am in full agreement with you here. But her stated views are based on appeals to emotionalism and are carefully worded to skirt the facts. SHE'S the one who is ignoring inconvenient facts (such as solar power/special interets example). There was nothing on her site I can't find on a thousand other politician's sites, from any part of the spectrum.

Actually, you should have more respect for my views, then. ;-) I say, flat out and with full clarity, making California attractive to business is the number one issue to be faced, right here and right now. That view is based on general working principles developed over quite a number of years, observing the empirical data and current events, from studying history and coming to what I feel are rather inescapable conclusions. I do NOT voice them because I belong to some Party (I'm firmly independnet, and dislike all the big political Parties) which has these views as the Official Line.

Re:Where the business?

[Anonymous Coward]

Business? Where is the business going to go if you have an untrained, uneducated populace and a dodgy power supply? Running a town, city, county, state, country - there is no magic button to press and watch everything fall into shape. It is all interconnected. You need businesses to produce tax revenue to fund schools. You need education to have a populace capable of supporting successful businesses.

Clearly the legality of this is simple

[cyberlotnet]

As my mother used to say

"We brought you into this world and we can take you out"

This recall was voted on by the same people that put him in.. What more do you need.

I in fact love the idea.. It would help keep people in check... No more telling people one thing, then doing another when you get in office.. Speak what you mean and what you will do or get ousted by the people.

Qualifications:

[lawpoop]

[x] studied computer science at UC Berkeley
[x] often wears ThinkGeek clothing
[x] has a blog
[x] reads Slashdot
[x] knows how to run Linux

[x] Has cute chick on website.

He's got the geek vote!

Re:Qualifications:

[(void*)]

You've got to joking - she IS the cute chick.

Best cheap slice of pizza in Berkeley?

[didjit]

Blondie's or Fat Slice?

Re:Best cheap slice of pizza in Berkeley?

[scupper]

Fat Slice!!!

Re:Best cheap slice of pizza in Berkeley?

[didjit]

I always wanted to back the third party candidate (in true Berkeley fashion) and go with Greg's, but they always undercook their crust and its doughy. Blondie's has the persistent rat rumor. By default, its Fat Slice, I just wish the slices were as Fat as they used to be.

Would you grant asylum to Saddam?

[Kakurenbo Shogun]

I think the burning question in all of our minds, which most of us are afraid to ask for fear of being bombed into oblivion is, if you are elected, will you grant asylum in California to Saddam Hussein? Will you allow him to live in Silicon Valley, or force him to live in L.A.? Will you give him a job? Will you give him a redwood tree? Will you allow him to appear in public in a speedo?

If these questions are too loaded for you to answer, could you at least tell us whether you would have the courage to thumb your nose at George W. Bush, regardless of your views on this burning issue, or will you simply be his puppet, his lap-dog, a feeble echo of The Man?

Riddle me this, Genius...

[Anonymous Coward]

If illegal immigrants are such a vile sucubus weighing on the US economy why do people continue to hire them in droves, eh fucktard?

Re:Riddle me this, Genius...

[GutBomb]

because they are worried about THEIR bottom line, not everyone else's

Re:Riddle me this, Genius...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ya, but worrying about the bottom line of anyone but yourself is COMMUNISM and we don't want that now do we?!

Measuring the economic impact of Free Software

[lynx_user_abroad]

How would you go about measuring the economic impact of free software development?

I guess some background is in order. In "Third Wave", Alvin Toffler defines a "Sector A" of the economy as composed of goods and services produced for one's own consumption (like growing a tomato which you eat yourself) and a "Sector B" of the economy composed of all the goods and services produced "for the Market"; to be exchanged with others (like the tomato grown to be sold/traded for something else). Toffler points out that the current methods of measuring economic activity are entirely focused on Sector B; while "raising your own tomatoes" is still a productive activity, it's impact to GNP (for example) is completely neglected no matter how many tomatos are produced and consumed without ever entering the market.

Since most Free Software activities are based in Sector A, the economic impact of Free Software development, while clearly having a large (and ever increasing) impact on the economy, is nevertheless still being completely neglected by the tools economists use for determining economic impact. Do you view this as a problem, and if so how would you correct it?

Career Move?

[BrynM]

Two questions really, but related. Are you planning a career in politics, especially if you should win? Did you decide to run for governor or did enough people say "You should run for governor" that you started seriously thinking about it?

Bonus Question: What do you hope to gain if you should win?

About the deficit problem

[missing000]

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.

The states made a big mistake when they started using sales taxes to pad their incomes. This is one of the key problems with a national sales tax to replace the income tax, a system that keeps being promoted.

When spending is high, the ecconomy is good and the sales tax revenues are quite large. The state runs a surplus and the voters demand increased services.

Then spending declines and just when people get laid off, at the time when demand of services is highest, the state has to make dramatic cuts that prove to be unpopular.

The message? Sales taxes are a bad idea.

One idea I like is the circulation fee system. Instead of rewarding the non-use of money it rewards trading it quickly, thus creating a much higher amount of consumer spending, the engine that makes money powerful.

Re:About the deficit problem

[cheezedawg]

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 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:About the deficit problem

[monkeydo]

One idea I like is the circulation fee system. Instead of rewarding the non-use of money it rewards trading it quickly, thus creating a much higher amount of consumer spending, the engine that makes money powerful.

On the contrary, higher consumer spending is what drives inflation, which makes money LESS powerful.

Re:About the deficit problem

[Anonymous Coward]

One idea I like is the circulation fee system. Instead of rewarding the non-use of money it rewards trading it quickly, thus creating a much higher amount of consumer spending, the engine that makes money powerful.

Uh, way to think that through, genious. If it costs you money to keep money, then your money loses value over time. Wait- that sounds a lot like (drumroll....) INFLATION! So you are suggesting a government mandated inflation!

I think I'll stick with Greenspan...

Re:About the deficit problem

[SquadBoy]

"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.

Re:About the deficit problem

[lambadomy]

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.

Re:About the deficit problem

[Anonymous Coward]

> 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.

Low income people have no choice about living on every penny they can scrounge. The astronomical income people who promote these retarded schemes couldn't spend all their income if they wanted to.

Sales taxes tax 100% of the income of the poor and roughly 0% of the income of the rich.

Small wonder that conservatives love this so much.

Re:About the deficit problem

[pmz]

Sales taxes are a bad idea.

So are federal income taxes. At least sales taxes can be kept low by the voting public, and, with very specific exclusions and reasonably far-sighted planning, they can be very fair and sustainable, too. Sales tax is marginally better than income tax, but, like you said, there are other potentially better options out there.

Re:About the deficit problem

[lambadomy]

I replied to the poster saying basically the same thing. I'm pretty sure, however, that of anything he would be supportive of this article at the cato institute explaing the workings and benefits of having soley a national sales tax. One stipulation of the plan is that all income below $18,858 is tax exempt.

Re:About the deficit problem

[dipipanone]

Sales tax is marginally better than income tax

Given that sales tax imposes an unreasonable burden on the poor, I can't begin to imagine why anyone would believe this. If you only earn $15,000 a year, sales tax is likely to take up a much higher proportion of your income than it is on someone who earns $150,000 a year.

Of course, if you earn $150,000 a year I can see how you might consider this 'better'. What it isn't though, is fairer.

Re:About the deficit problem

[Anonymous Coward]

All you have to do is look at the states without income taxes. They have a much higher percentage of people below the poverty line than states with income taxes. Their schools are horrible, their police force are jokes and their standards of living definitely aren't as good as the states with income taxes. One enormous advantage of the state income tax is that it's deductible against your federal income tax, sales tax isn't.

Re:About the deficit problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Before you go much further, have a look at the plan for a national sales tax. It's at Fairtax. It would be about 23%, but it would replace all other taxes and would refund (by way of a monthly check) those taxes paid on essentials. Looks damned good to me.

More info here

Re:About the deficit problem

[Anonymous Coward]

"sales tax imposes an unreasonable burden on the poor"

Not if food, medicine, and clothing are exempt from sales tax. Many states have such exemptions. The poor, by definition, are not buying a new car every year or tons of luxury items. If they are, they are not poor (in fact, they are richer than I am!).

Re:About the deficit problem

[Anonymous Coward]

You agree that someone who spends 90% of their wage on necessities should pay 9% of his gross on sales tax, but someone who spends only 10%, and sits on the rest of it should only pay 1% of his gross.

Why not just have a flat rate tax where everyone pays X dollars and if they can't afford it, they're thrown into debtors prison? That way the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. You can have a nominal luxury tax too, if you want to get a bit more out of yacht sales and other big ticket items the rich buy; which are, unfortunately, only one time purchases made by a small minority and make up a very small percent of total revenue.

Re:About the deficit problem

[pmz]

Given that sales tax imposes an unreasonable burden on the poor, I can't begin to imagine why anyone would believe this.

Actually, sales tax would be the ultimate tax relief for the poor. Like other posters have said, if essential things, like food and clothing, are tax-free, then the poor are off the hook. This is what I meant by "very specific exclusions"--food, clothing, school supplies, and, perhaps, birth control.

Re:About the deficit problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Sales taxes are very transparent, but that doesn't make them the best kind of tax. A sales tax does not discriminate on the basis of income, so it ends up taxing rich and poor equally as a percentage. This percentage is usually very affordable to a richer family, but poor families pay a steep fee for their more marginal income. In a state like California (huge number of very rich and very poor families) relying on the sales tax too much would be a pretty bad idea.

Re:About the deficit problem

[Anonymous Coward]

That's foolish, and perpetuates one of the problems we already have. Why does gov't get an interest-free loan from us? If they're going to refund it anyway, how about not taking it to begin with? Less overhead (processing manpower), less expense (postage), less wasted time. How hard is it to simply say, "No tax on food, clothing, or medicine"?

And a 23% sales tax is fricking huge! At least it exposes the true cost of government, though. A quarter of the economy just to sustain government?

-CT

Re:About the deficit problem

[deanj]

The people that make the least don't pay taxes, apart from sales tax.

That's why HR 25 should be passed.

Re:About the deficit problem

[Anonymous Coward]

[Reels in the troll...]

You are kidding, right?

You see how much the average "rich" guy spends on yachts, cars, plane trips, golf clubs, and time shares?

Re:About the deficit problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Nearly all personal hygiene products should be exempt from sales tax.

Re:About the deficit problem

[8-balll]

I'll agree with your "very specific exclusions", except it will have to be more specific... saying food is to general..I can go to the food store(Food Lion, Farm Fresh etc..)and buy alcohol, smokes and other things that are not a requiremnet for sustaining life. It needs to regulated sort of how food stamps are by not letting those items be bought without a sales tax...

Re:About the deficit problem

[drinkypoo]

I'm unaware of anywhere in the U.S. where one pays sales tax on food. One does have to pay a deposit for recyclable containers in some states but you get that back so it's excusable.

Interestingly enough people paying for food with food stamps do not pay tax on snack food items as others do in California. Anyone working 20-30 hours weekly for minimum wage or thereabouts who is not a dependent can get a significant quantity of food stamps. So really, people who are at such a low income where such things matter can generally get help. Actually, the middle class is penalized most (the lower middle class anyway) because they can't afford to lease a bunch of shit and write it off to some business. The top 10 US taxpayers in 2001 paid tax on only about 50% of their income, which means they're not paying any more taxes by rate than anyone else. I don't know if that means the system is fair after all (unlikely) or just completely fucked (sounds like it to me.)

The answer? Who knows. I'm not an economist :P

Re:About the deficit problem

[Asmodean]

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.

So rich people do not need to buy food, clothes, or other things that they need? I think sales taxes are an excellent idea, as long as you get rid of all other taxes.

If I'm rich and buy a huge mansion, then I will have to pay a huge sales tax on it. If I own a company, then I will have to pay sales tax on all of my equipment, buildings, manufacturing supplies, etc.

If you get rid of all other taxes then then there should be a sales tax on EVERY sale, including the purchase of services, employees, etc.

Re:About the deficit problem

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.taxadmin.org/fta/rate/sales.html

Re:About the deficit problem

[ionpro]

Well, let me make you aware of one place: Tennessee. I pay 8.5% tax on groceries, and 9.5% tax on everything else. (I believe the state is 6.25% and 7.25% respectively; the other part is municipal taxes)

Re:About the deficit problem

[Anonymous Coward]

>>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.

Cause ya know, that whole "let's get better defense cause of 9-11" is ludicrous. I mean, who'd wanna go into debt so that people don't die.

Re:About the deficit problem

[Jeremi]

So rich people do not need to buy food, clothes, or other things that they need?

For all practical purposes, they don't. Calculate what percentage of his salary Bill Gates spends on food and clothing, and then calculate what percentage the average Joe does.

Re:About the deficit problem

[pmz]

Nearly all personal hygiene products should be exempt from sales tax.

Soap, at least. It helps keep poor people from catching every damn communicable disease they come by.

Re:About the deficit problem

[pmz]

It needs to regulated sort of how food stamps are by not letting those items be bought without a sales tax...

Get rid of food stamps, too. Food is not expensive.

Poor kids don't need Tony the Tiger, nor do they need to sweat Gatorade to get by. If a family can't budget for food, then I don't know how to help them.

And if a parent can't choose between buying beer and supporting his/her children, then their problems are far beyond the federal government's reach.

Re:About the deficit problem

[SquadBoy]

Utah

Re:About the deficit problem

[dipipanone]

Actually, sales tax would be the ultimate tax relief for the poor. Like other posters have said, if essential things, like food and clothing, are tax-free, then the poor are off the hook.

Unfortunately, this just isn't the case. When I say 'the poor', I'm really talking about low to moderate income families. These people have the same needs as everybody else. So they need transportation to get to work. They need a home and that needs to be maintained. Their refrigerator and their washing machine will break down from time to time.

Because these people don't have a great deal of excess income, all of their income goes towards meeting their household bills. At the moment (in Europe at least), most of those bills are subject to sales tax in the form of value added tax. So if your roof starts to leak, you'll pay 18% of the repair costs on top in tax.

As a result, those on low incomes give over a much larger proportion of that income to the taxman than those who can afford to stash it away.

If you were talking about a tax on luxury goods, then I'd agree with you, but in practice, very few of the necessities of life are exempted from sales taxes which is why they have the reputation for being a regressive form of taxation.

Re:About the deficit problem

[Asmodean]

For all practical purposes, they don't. Calculate what percentage of his salary Bill Gates spends on food and clothing, and then calculate what percentage the average Joe does.

Ahh, but Bill Gates would not be able to spend his money without paying a sales tax under this system. So it would not matter how much money he has, he still needs to spend it for it to do him any good.

When I say sales tax I mean a sales tax on EVERY purchase. If you exchange money for something, then you pay a tax.

Re:About the deficit problem

[majorflaw]

Sales tax is the most regressive tax of all because it effects *everyone*. Those wealthy enough to afford "luxury"items may be mildly annoyed, but it will not prevent them from purchasing. However people of more modest means will find that adding an additional 5%-10% to the price makes the item unaffordable. This, of course, presents a problem when items like "food" become out of reach for some.

How about a property tax assessed against passive assets, in excess of anything reasonable, which do not contribute to commerce or our economy.

Re:About the deficit problem

[McAddress]

That theory only holds true if the rich spend as much as the poor.
Example: one person makes $100,000 a year, and spends $40,000 of it. At a 25% sales tax, that equals out to 10% ot total earnings, whereas if someone was to earn $40,000 and spend it all it would equal out to 25% of total earnings.
However, if we look at reality, assume that both people save the same amount, say 4%. The first guy spends $96,000, and pays $24,000 in taxes, a total of 24% of his paycheck. The other guy spends $38,400, and pays taxes of $9600, that is also 24% of his paycheck, making the system equal for all parties.

Re:About the deficit problem

[gte910h]

I'm unaware of anywhere in the U.S. where one pays sales tax on food.

Georgia for one. Its a much simpler system then the taxable/non-taxable system they use in Cali. Base 4% with counties allowed to tack on up to 2% more. Every retail item is taxable, as is all food in resturants. Oddly enough, alcohol is taxed at a 3% rate that counties can't add onto.

I don't know if that means the system is fair after all (unlikely) or just completely fucked (sounds like it to me.)

There are two purposes of the tax system, to produce revenue for the government, and to control the habits of industry and people. As you increase an individual's tax burden, you increase the incentive for them to lobby congress for a loophole. There is no way around this except an very simple system. However congress can't go for a simple system, because then they can't control the economy as they'd like. They wouldn't be able to, for instance, do a homestead exemption which greatly increases the number of homeowners in the country.

I think the best we can do is outlaw certain forms of taxation. For instance, I've always been an advocate of disallowing local tax funds going to fund schools. I believe the each child in the state should get the same education, which means should get the same amount of money per child. However the property tax->school coffer system means rural and urban kids get crappy educations.

WRONG !!!

[Anonymous Coward]

The deficit is a result of the politicians increasing spending during the boom.

Would you...

[Anonymous Coward]

Would you pose for Slashdot in your Georgy for Governer thong if it meant more votes? Or is that outside the bounds of "clean elections"?

Why not just step down?

[Snerdley]

While I am personally enjoying the chance to have a new governor of California after the disaster that state has become (is there such a thing as a "Third World State"?), I am curious about the approach the Democrats are taking in California.

Why not have Gray Davis just step down? At this point, there is little chance of him surviving the recal. Assuming nothing changes between now and Oct. 7 in that area, why wouldn't he just step down on the eve of the election? That would put the Lt. Governor in power, and should invalidate the recall.

No doubt I may have missed some subtlety in the (bizarre) California recall laws: does anyone know of a reason this wouldn't work?

As for my question for Georgy: as a left-leaning Democrat who would presumably dislike a Republican Governor, would you support a call to ask Gray David to resign if that would stop the recall?

Re:Why not just step down?

[Lurch4711]

The recall election would go on. Div. 11, Sect. 11302 of the California Election Code: "Vacancy after petition is filed: If a vacancy occurs in an office after a recall petition is filed against the vacating officer, the recall election shall nevertheless proceed. The vacancy shall be filled as provided by law, but any person appointed to fill the vacancy shall hold office only until a successor is selected in accordance with Article 4 (commencing with Section 11360) or Article 5 (commencing with Section 11380), and the successor qualifies for that office." Article 5 specifically pertains to non-local officials (Article 4 covers recall procedures in general). It covers what you probably already know. If 50% or more of votes are "yes" (to recall), the person in office is out. So what would happen is that if Davis stepped down, Bustamante would become governor, and the recall election would then basically pertain to him - he's either in or out, based upon the outcome of the vote. There ain't no way to stop this now (short of court intervention, which appears like it won't happen; otherwise

Re:Why not just step down?

[Lurch4711]

The recall election would go on. Div. 11, Sect. 11302 of the California Election Code: "Vacancy after petition is filed: If a vacancy occurs in an office after a recall petition is filed against the vacating officer, the recall election shall nevertheless proceed. The vacancy shall be filled as provided by law, but any person appointed to fill the vacancy shall hold office only until a successor is selected in accordance with Article 4 (commencing with Section 11360) or Article 5 (commencing with Section 11380), and the successor qualifies for that office." Article 5 specifically pertains to non-local officials (Article 4 covers recall procedures in general). It covers what you probably already know. If 50% or more of votes are "yes" (to recall), the person in office is out. So what would happen is that if Davis stepped down, Bustamante would become governor, and the recall election would then basically pertain to him - he's either in or out, based upon the outcome of the vote. There ain't no way to stop this now (short of court intervention, which appears like it won't happen; they did rule that people could vote against the recall AND for a candidate, but as it stands now, that will be the extent of their intervention on this).

Couple Quetions

[ad0gg]

Do you like movies about gladiators?

Have you ever been in a turkish prison?

Re:Couple Quetions

[CracktownHts]

But more importantly:

Have you ever seen a grown man naked?

Arnold!

[Anonymous Coward]

No thanks, I'll vote for Arnold.

Affairs in order-

[IWantMoreSpamPlease]

If you run, at some point in time you will be subjected to the same media meatgrinder that all candidates get.

Are your affairs in order? In other words, do you have any skeletons in your closet you should bury or come to terms with before someone else finds out about them?

You know those skeletons, those shameful little secrets like an MCSE or OS/2 server in your closet.

I jest, but you see the point.

If you are running, like it or not, you'll be representing the Linux crowd, make sure you are fit to be the standard bearer.

Re:Affairs in order-

[swordgeek]

Pardon me! An OS/2 server is NOT a shameful thing at all! It's a point of pride and stature.

Now being an MCSE, especially a recent one, I can't argue that.

Go Canada!

[Jennifer E. Elaan]

Controversial issues? These are on the table NOW up here in Canada. The courts have ruled that gay marriage is the only fair solution, so government can't really do anything about it, and the laws against marijuana possession are no longer in force (I believe this is due to another court ruling, but I'm not really sure... I don't keep up on marijana news).

And we have real healthcare up here too. I think we should let this woman know that if she fails her bid in the USA, she should run in Canada. Her platform would be very popular up here.

Re:Go Canada!

[Anonymous Coward]

"And we have real healthcare up here too. "
So why the fuck our clinics are clogged with fucking Canadians ?
I had to wait fucking 2 days for an MRI cause of fucking canuks.

Re:Go Canada!

[On Lawn]

Yes, your judges are very busy up there. Here in the U.S.A we are a republic/democracy and rather have our legislatores do legislation.

From this page...

Over the past year four Canadian courts have ruled that marriage, recognized under the common law as "the union of one man and one woman," is inconsistent with constitutional values in modern Canadian society and offends the equality rights of homosexuals under section 15 of the Charter. These courts have determined that the existing legal framework for marriage is too narrowly defined and does not offer equitable treatment for non-traditional unions.

Two of the courts acknowledged the unique role of Parliament in formulating a proper response to this question. They gave the federal and provincial legislatures until July 2004 to rectify this situation. On June 10, however, the Ontario Court of Appeal acted unilaterally. It pre-empted further discussion by Parliament by striking down the common law definition of marriage and reformulating it as "the voluntary union for life of two persons." The court ordered that this remedy take effect immediately.

Re:Go Canada!

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually this is a very straightforward case
of the judicial branch simply interpreting the
legislation. Notice how the courts left the
actual decision of how the law should be changed
up to the legislation, simply noticing that
the currently existing law was contradictory
with the charter of rights.

Leave it to an american...

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Cute...

[IWorkForMorons]

Well, lets see. She's cute. She's a geek. And she's intelligent. Too bad she doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning, especially in celebrity-blinded California. But good luck to her anyways...maybe she can prove that there are intelligent people in California...

As governor, with a tech-friendly bent,

[pr0ntab]

will you ignore all the ignorant pleas by tech workers who are seeing their former jobs go overseas, and instead push legislation that will foster the development of new start-ups, encourage wireless carriers to expand coverage with modern standards, and to increasing funding to local graduate programs to help people go back to school and find new areas in which to work?

Silicon Valley is stagnating! Fix it!

Constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

Will you uphold and defend the federal Constitution as written and not enact, enforce or fund any rule or regulation, federal or State, that violates that Constitution?

that means

[www.sorehands.com]

That means that the illegal aliens must be deported. That the employers that hire them must be fined. That they cannot get government services or benefits.

In California, the police can take Mexican consular IDs or in registering children for school, issuing drivers licenses, etc.

Now, if you disgree with the immigration policy, you don't break the law. If you don't think a speed limit is bad, that does not exempt you from speeding tickets when you are going 50mph in a school zone.

Re:that means

[kevin lyda]

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.

Re:that means

[MrResistor]

If the person can't be bothered to go through the immigration process they should not expect the state to pay for their medical expenses. The paramedics can make their own choices about what to do in that circumstance, but _I_ should not have to foot the bill.

Re:that means

[kevin lyda]

yes, there are much better things to spend tax dollars on then saving people's lives. particularly illegal people.

as i said, i'm convinced. illegal immigrants who get into hospitals should be sent to factories and turned into dog chow.

If you really do read Slashdot,

[Kiaser Zohsay]

... what's your nick?

Re:If you really do read Slashdot,

[Anonymous Coward]

"Anonymous Gubernatorial Candidate"

How do you plan on standing out from the crowd?

[dafoomie]

How do you plan on standing out from the other 100+ candidates in this election? As much as I believe in your platform, I think the average voter will see it as no different than anyone elses seemingly minor issue, such as the man who wants to legalize ferrets as housepets. Also, how do you plan to combat the starpower and name recognition of actors and politicians such as Arnold Schwarzenegger, Gary Coleman, and the man who shares the same name as Michael Jackson?

Why bother legalizing marijuana?

[ExoticMandibles]

In your issues paper, 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. So, if you were elected governor of California, of what possible relevance is your stand on marijuana?

Re:Why bother legalizing marijuana?

[swb]

The greater the gap between state law and federal law on marijuana, the harsher the spotlight on the bad federal laws.

Plus, it serves as a an easy out for federal lawmakers. If even 1/3 of the states (which would probably more than 1/3 by population) decided to legalize marijuana, it'd be a "no-lose" proposition for federal lawmakers; they could say that they were just following the trend set by state lawmakers. Besides, there would likely be pressure on them to do so anyway.

Marijuana legalization is inevitable, IMHO. It's too widespread and too many generations simply have accepted its use and can't be made to fear it anymore. I suspect that by the time the current 18-24 generation is in their 40s, we'll see significant headway; that will put 2-3 generations with direct (mostly) positive experience with it in the voting majority. Couple that with broadening law enforcement priorities on shrinking budgets, and you see even the cops knowing that cracking down on pot is a waste of resources.

Re:Why bother legalizing marijuana?

[Anonymous Coward]

We see the same trend with teen prostitution.

They're getting younger and younger each year and moving up the economic ladder.

Since everyone is doing it and having direct mostly positive experiences it'll be ok to get rid of that ugly "minor" label and everyone can just have sex with everyone of any age with or without money exchanged.

Couple demographic trends with broadening law enforcement priorities on shrinking budgets and you see even the cops knowing that cracking down on pre-teen prostitution is a waste of resources.

more images please

[Anonymous Coward]

can you add more images to your gallery? thank you.

Re:Diner and a movie

[HBI]

A gubenatorial campaign...to pick up guys.

Forget dating sites, ladies. Just run for office!

Er...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

So he's a certified 24-karat tool. So what? What makes this interesting?

I wouldn't vote for him simply because he bought from ThinkGeek.

And gee, that's not too much of a shill, is it, Roblimo?

Re:Er...

[Anonymous Coward]

He's a she, so who's the tool now, toolmaster?

Re:are you a hottie?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, she is quite cute, pics.

What I Really Want to Know Is

[Fascist Christ]

Can I be your intern?

5,000 votes might be the difference...

[sampson7]

I love your campaign -- at least at first blush. Then I started thinking -- what happens if 5,000 young, liberal, Democratic voters actually vote for you? It doesn't seem at all outside the realm of possibility. Do you worry that you might be pulling support from a legitimate liberal candidate and throwing the election to someone like Arnold? Nader's candidacy seemed like fun and games until someone (namely 226 servicemen and women so far and counting) got hurt. Not trying to be heavy-handed, but is this something you considered? As election day comes closer, would you consider endorsing Davis or some other lefty candidate?

Re:5,000 votes might be the difference...

[FryGuy1013]

I was going to vote for nader, but I voted for Bush instead because I didn't want Gore to win.

Cattle

[Fantastic Lad]

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

[spamchang]

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

At a glance.

[eadint]

Although i would like to first say that, you would probably be the most attractive candidate we have. i would also like to point out that my first impression was, why is one of the campaign groupies on the website. than i realized that you were the one running for Governor. so here are my questions.
1) how in the world are you going to get people to take you seriously.
2) How can you legalize pot if the federal government will just take over and put people in jail anyways.
3) if your a geek than what about real issues
a) clear channel
b) ATT, Microsoft,Power conglomerate monopoly
c) the fact that for every 30$ only 1$ makes it to the student.
d) The three strikes law is being used in california by the prison union to put more people away than any other contry in the world.
e) Real estate prices are compleatly ridiculous.
4) one of the major problems that Jesse Ventura had was that the state house and Senate blocked and did everything they could to to make him completely powerless. how would you combat that.
5) finally in a three ring circus, like the California elections, how do you intend not to be looked at as just another clown.

on a side note
SUYT??????

Pandering to the voters with some "boudoir" pics

[Anonymous Coward]

Georgy, over here, a question!

Would you pander to the voters with some special lingerie shots for the more avid members of your campaign, with the sure knowledge that a cute little photo of you in a teddy would lock up the red-blooded geek vote?

How about a pic of you in bra and boyshorts, released on Kazaa? It's all about using the different media effectively.

Thanks!

Setting a bad precedent?

[-Nails-]

What do you think of the precedent that is being set here? That a governor can be recalled mostly by the efforts of a single affluent individual, namely Darrell Issa. Do you fear these recalls becoming an expensive and repeating affair?

-Nails-

Electronic voting machines

[opencity]

As a tech and a participant in the electoral process, how do you feel about the move to electronic voting?

Are you nervous about the lack of a paper trail? In your election and national elections?
Do you think there will/can be proper oversight of the company making the machines?
Do you think Linux has a place in an open source voting system that would be easily cross checkable and maintain the proper level of discretion?
Would you support a Federal or State move to subsidize last mile infrastructure and do you think it could be implimented without (an unacceptable level of) rampant corruption?

Wow

[Adapt or Die]

Even for a /. geek, you're an idiot.

no confidence votes

[Von Rex]

There's one huge difference: after a no-confidence vote, there's a regular election. Not one with special rules like this California recall fiasco. That is, in a parliamentary system, after a vote of no-confidence Davis could run just like any other candidate and the winner would be declared using the same methods as a normal election.

No-confidence votes are also done by members of parliament, not through the collection of signatures on a petition.

Question

[El]

You don't mention your religious beleifs on your web page, so could you answer one simple question: vi or emacs?

PANT

[isorox]

*PANT PANT PANT*

Hot, sexy, female geek? This hasnt happened since Asia Carrera!

Few things from her site.

[JollyFinn]

From things she drives for makes me wonder.
Is she lesbian?
[Not that I would consider her my type.]
Does she smoke marihuana?
[Especially when trying to legalize that in one state when federal law states other vice.]

True Story

[QuackQuack]

My wife had a friend in College who smoked pot all the time.

They went to see Jurassic Park when it came out, and the pot smoking friend (who wasn't stoned through the movie), said afterward, "I thought there was supposed to be a T-rex in that movie!"

I don't think she wears either

[RelliK]

see subject

Questions:

[Anonymous Coward]

She cute?

What she going to do to get the same press coverage as "The Terminator?"

The press really does decide elections.

1/2 the responses refer to you as male

[Arkhan]

Ms. Russell,

You are being positioned, at least in this community, as the "geek candidate". (I'll omit the quotes from now on, and hope you're not offended by the word geek.)

It seems to me that a female geek holds the best hope for getting a technologically-competent politician into an important office, because female geeks escape from many of the negative stereotypes that plague male geeks in the public perception.

How do you think being a female geek vs a male geek affects your chance to win the election? (Better? Worse? Non-issue?) Along the same lines, do you believe being female in general will make the election easier or more difficult for you?

The reason I asked this question is this -- over half of the replies to this interview post have referred to you as "he", "him", or otherwise as a male, when even the short article blurb clearly indicated you were a "she".

Re: 1/2 the responses refer to you as male

[Kirin3]

Mostly, I think it shows the lack of diligence in people's reading of important facts, and a complete and utter lack of READING THE FREAKIN' ARTICLE ;)

Re: 1/2 the responses refer to you as male

[daveq]

The chance of winning the election is the same either way (0%), but I think Georgy has used her gender mostly to turn her campaign into a joke. Selling thongs, "Brains, Beauty, Leadership," and all the other gags serve to remind voters that she has no fact-based platform to run on.

Re: 1/2 the responses refer to you as male

[Erbo]

...she has no fact-based platform to run on.

As opposed to Arnold Schwarzenegger's extremely-factual campaign, for instance?</sarcasm>

Bear in mind, she still has two months to codify her positions before the election...

Re: 1/2 the responses refer to you as male

[daveq]

Let's face it: The whole election is a joke. Every time I try to take California seriously, they do something like this...

Re: 1/2 the responses refer to you as male

[Erbo]

Now you're making me glad I split California nearly four years ago. Things are a bit saner in Colorado. OK, they just elected a brewpub owner as mayor of Denver, and our Governor bears a certain resemblance to Sheriff Woody from Toy Story, and one of our Congressmen foams at the mouth whenever he talks about illegal immigration, but it's pretty sane compared to what's goin' down on the coast...

Affirmative Action

[stames]

What is your view on Affirmative Action?

As a college student in the UC system, but a politically rightist town (LA), I hear a lot of different views on the subject. I am also, however, a white guy that grew up in an upper-middle class neighborhood. Now, I'm all for diversity, but do you think affirmative action is really the right way to get diversity into schools? If so, why? If not, what do you propose? Would you try to do anything to solve racial diversity issues at a lower level than that of the university?

Obvious Answer

[billnapier]

Why Not?

What really matters is...

[corgicorgi]

What is your Karma? :)

Age

[retro128]

It's very difficult to find a person holding a public office who isn't 40+. From your picture I judge you are well below that. For most people, age symbolic of maturity, wisdom, and life experience. Do you think your age might be a problem in appealing to the constituency?

The constituency aside, should you get voted governor, do you believe the older California lawmakers will take you seriously? How do you intend to gain their respect?

Re:Age

[Anonymous Coward]

Very difficult to find someone under 40 in government, but it's also very difficult to find a person over 40 that can operate a VCR--whoops that was 20 years ago--I mean a TIVO.

Of course age matters. We don't want five year olds bossing us around after all.

On the other hand 50 year olds are out of touch with most of us and can't really grasp what's going on with the world till its over and done with. They also don't read /. and can't boot from a floppy. I was smartest at about 20. It's been all downhill from there.

Lawmakers will be lining up in droves to take her seriously. How could you not take a popularly elected official with veto power seriously?

Re:Age

[retro128]

That is true but as the old joke goes, you don't have to be a brain to be the boss...just an asshole.

When was the last time you had a manager who knew squat about what you are doing? When was the last time you had a boss younger than you are? Would you be happy taking orders from someone half your age? And why should things be any different in government? Government is, after all, the largest corporation minus accountability.

Could you see a 20-something geek girl, probably just out of college, heading up a 117 billion dollar a year corporation as CEO? This is what we are asked to swallow with the Georgy Russell for Governor campaign.

Re:Age

[genericacct]

Good point, to use the example of managers. I actually worked briefly under someone younger than me, and other than wondering how he advanced so quickly in the first place (genuine curiosity), I thought he was pleasantly fair and effective. Granted, he was quite loud and tiring to work around, but was otherwise good in his role.

Re:Age

[Anonymous Coward]

She's 26. It's on her page. She's more qualified suck a governor's dick than to be governor.

Re:Age

[zarniwhoop]

making a swiss watch what exactly?

Tax Caffeine!!

[PetoskeyGuy]

She might tax caffeine! Imagine the revenue that would create!

I'm not saying that's a good thing, I mean everyone needs their caffeine now and then, but there is a Star Bucks on every corner and Mt. Dew and Red Bull and Jolt and all those programmers in California and they all need their caffeine so if each of them just gave a few pennies per cup or bottle, the world would be such a better place and I know it's supposed to be addictive and all but it's really not, you just can't get by without it ya know, but it's good. Especially in the morning, and how else can you get through your meetings or finish that project on time and sure on my day off I drink just as much, but ... I mean you need coffeee, or cappucinos or colas but the state needs money and cigarettes aren't good for you either so they tax those, but caffeine is ok, just not as bad but could be used for good and it's being used to save all those starving kids too I hear on TV so lets just tax it and help some Californians too....

Only 6 cups today, so I'm still a little groggy.

WOW!

[GuNgA-DiN]

Brains and a Body...... I just sent her $10!

I'd love to see more candidates like this.....

Universal health care and balancing the budget

[squarooticus]

How do you intend to provide universal health care (presumably also to undocumented works who get paid under the table and therefore pay no income or payroll tax) and balance the budget? What services will you cut? Whose taxes will you raise? Have you considered that raising taxes on businesses and wealth individuals will merely drive them out of the state, resulting in fewer jobs and recession?

I don't think you have thought through your positions very well. Yet another reason why not to base one's vote on a pretty face or nice-sounding platitudes, and instead on experience and realistic proposals.

the big question...

[rastachops]

...that /. wants to hear:

If you are elected will you make Linux in schools:
a) compulsory
b) mandatory
or
c) obligatory

:)

Re:the big question...

[Anonymous Coward]

she's running windows in the picture, so whatever

Re:the big question...

[bhtooefr]

Windows with spyware, too. See that little yellow thing near the top of the IE window? It's Hotbar. She is running Apache on Linux, though. Her uptime's rather good. It's a shame I can't vote anywhere (not 18), let alone CA (I'm in OH). I don't know who I'd vote for, but...

From Her Site (see BLOG) re: Qualifications

[Valiss]

Thursday, August 07, 2003

Regarding my lack of experience ... I've gotten asked about this a lot, especially by callers on the radio. In the same breath as my critics and even some self proclaimed supporters disparage Gray or Bush, they tell me I need to run for local office first, before they will consider me for the governorship.

That brings me to the most obvious response to the issue - Bush and Davis are successfully demonstrating that experience holding political office is over-rated. But let's dig deeper, because this unarguable defense is one that Arnold and Arianna can claim. I have lived in California for 26 years. Almost 27. I'm a second generation native Oaklander. Residents of my neighborhood included gay and lesbian couples, African Americans, Philipinos, Vietnamese, etc. My dad is from LA, where I visit his side of the family several times a year. I've attended public schools throughout my life, including UC Berkeley. I have worked in high tech through the dot-com boom and bust. This first hand experience, judging by the lack of native cali girls and boys on the ballot, is under valued. But it's this experience, in part, that sets me apart from the Arnolds and Ariannas. So all of this really begs the question, what sort of experience does the position of governor require? To answer this, for now, try to not look at PRIOR office holders, and think about what sort of person you want representing you. And maybe ask yourself, if you were stranded on a desert island, forced to choose a leader, would you elect the best looking person? the most popular? the person with the highest IQ? the person with the highest EQ? the most courageous? the most athletic? the richest? So you decide that, and I promise I will later discuss some of what it is that the governor actually does (or what he/she *can* do).

Onto an inexperinced, yet high profile, candidate I haven't addressed much - Arnold. To those who cite Proposition 49 as "experience," realize this is Arnold's PR machine at work. The proposition simply earmarked existing funds, it did not give any new funds to the school system, just rearranged how they were spent. The crafty proposition did, however, set a stage in the minds of Californians, upon which Arnold is now acting out his political fantasy. Today, it's quite possible anyone who loves the Terminator, but wonders about his ability to govern, will think back to last year, faintly recollecting Arnold spearheaded prop 49, and subsequently convincing himself it's ok to vote for Arnold. This is what he's hoping for, I'm hoping people will see thru this blatant manipulation of the electorate, and ask the Terminator, how exactly do you plan to pump up the economy? I've been asked a wide array of questions, and have tried to answer as many as possible directly in emails or through my issue positions. If Arnold were subject to this depth and breadth of questioning, I guarantee Arnold would "falter," wondering where his teleprompter is, resorting to the "I'll be back" defense and running for the nearest advisor.

- posted by Georgy @ 10:37 PM

Re:From Her Site (see BLOG) re: Qualifications

[spoonyfork]

Regarding my lack of experience ...

Read that. She doesn't really answer the question there which is why I asked it here. Leadership experience can come from many different sources -- not all of which has to be public office politics. The governer of the fifth largest economy in the world will need leadership skills and experience. She had to be able to get things done. What, in her words and experience, can she describe that demonstrates that she can get things done?

Regarding Arnold, I don't see how Arnold's or any other candidate's qualifications (or lack thereof) have anything to do with Georgy's. Someone else's lack of experience certainly doesn't equate to a reason to vote for her, or anyone else for that matter.

Do you have the time?

[Irvu]

As I understand it, the date of the election is still up in the air. Whenever that occurs, the winner will still face the general election in 2006. That gives the winner roughly two years (barring a second recall) in which to work before facing another election.

Is that really a sufficient amount of time to repair (or make a positive dent in) California's budget problems? If so, how do you plan on doing that?

California Vs. Monster

[Reverend528]

What's the highest score you've ever recieved from the "Tokyo" Scenerio of Sim City.

The studies have issues

[Efreet]

First, I have to say that the articles don't have the the details neccesary to make an informed judgement on whether the studies were valid or not.

Second, if you've ever read a science article in a popular source and then checked back to the origonal in a journal, you'll find that there are usually big differences, even in science specializing magazines like New Scientist, let alone the BBC. Thus we have no way of knowing if the results of the journal article were reported correctly, even if it was valid.

But even given those, there are still numerous grounds to critisize the articles on. In the first one I assume that they found twins where one had voluntarily decided to take up smoking marijuana instead of forcing one of them to start, meaning that one was already more likly to use illegal drugs, and so it should be no suprise that that twin would continue to use drugs later in life.

The seocnd study doesn't seem to have any glaring problems like that, and has kept me of teh opinion that abusing marijuana is bad for you. However, I'm pretty sure that the consiquences of 25 years of heavy alchohol use are far, far worse than a moderate memory impairment. In fact, the first study makes the same oversight (from the drug prohibition view) of not comparing early use of marijuana to early use of alchohol.

I've been reading articles articles like this for quite a while, and have still found nothing to convince me that smoking weed has even half the negitive consiquences of drinking. I'm not pretending that its a good thing, just that its less harmeful than many of the drugs that are legally sanctioned. I don't smoke weed, but I don't drink either.

Universal health care?

[Upaut]

Correct me if I am wrong, but England has a similar health care policy. I don't know if you have had to go to an English hospital recently, but they are horrible, in both operation and treatment of patients (especially for the elderly. If one is to looks for as more efficient health care system and sees one that works well in a small population, it would be best to compare it to a similar system that has a much larger population before deciding that it works. Universal health care is much like communism, it looks very nice on paper, but in practice it corrupts quickly, into a primitive, unfunctional system. On what information, save Vermont, have you decided that this would be a good idea?

Re:Universal health care?

[Anonymous Coward]

France or Germany. British system is screwed because the UK is in terminal decline, except for the south-east corner it's becoming a second world country and health care reflects this. Despite their so-called "economic problems", France and Germany hav excellent state run medical systems. And Germany is bigger than Ca.

New study shows that Marajuana use causes denial..

[QuackQuack]

A new study published in the New England Journal of Medicine shows a sharp correlation between the use of marajuana, and disbelief of any evidence that marajuana is harmful.

"We believe that marajuana use destroys the part of the brain that causes people to think marajuana is bad for you, known as the Doobie lobe, in honor of Ken Doobie, who discovered it. We are not yet sure why it has this effect."

"Dude, it's great that you have all this research and citations, but where's your evidence, I don't see any.", remarked one pot user and legalization activist upon hearing of the report.

Did you manage to solve your samba problem...

[el_flynn]

..that you posted on the kernel mailing list (http://lists.insecure.org/lists/linux-kernel/2000 /Dec/0309.html).

And I thought this would be the obvious question..

[Slime-dogg]

I'm impressed by some of the things you say in your blog, I really like that "how much you pay for a vote," type of thing. I was really wondering though...

Will you go out with me?

I know I'm some unknown geek out in cyberspace, but don't let that stand in the way. Hell, the question stands whether you win or loose.

CowboyNeal for Governor

[slackr]

Dear Georgy

Do you think there should be a CowboyNeal option in the CA Governor's race?

Or should I not complain about lack of options?

Re:CowboyNeal for Governor

[tadas]

Do you think there should be a CowboyNeal option in the CA Governor's race?

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

Re:CowboyNeal for Governor

[Anonymous Coward]

In California the part of CowboyNeal will be played by Geary Coleman.

Will more government really fix health care?

[ExoticMandibles]

In your issues statement, you say:

We need to strive towards a system of universal health care similar to Vermont's. We can't allow millions of children to remain without basic insurance, unable to get the most basic treatments.

Fifty years ago, health care in the United States was relatively unregulated, and we had the best health care in the world bar-none. Medical insurance was cheap and easily available, and the destitute had access to free charity medical care. But thirty years of intensive government meddling has left our health care system in shambles. In this article by Harry Browne, he quotes Dr. Jane Orient as saying:

When medical care was mostly paid for by patients, the hospital bill for an appendectomy was the equivalent of 10 days' wages for a common laborer ($149 in 1960). Now it's at least a couple months of take-home pay for a middle-income person (about $3,000). They still do the procedure the same way, and the patient is generally home faster.

Do you really think you can improve health care with more regulation, more bureaucracy, more goverment-institutionalized force?

Re:Will more government really fix health care?

[pmz]

Fifty years ago, health care in the United States was relatively unregulated, and we had the best health care in the world bar-none. Medical insurance was cheap and easily available, and the destitute had access to free charity medical care. But thirty years of intensive government meddling has left our health care system in shambles.

Agreed. Removing the individual consumer from the picture also removes the most powerful price check available. If doctors try to charge too much, individuals can tell doctors where to stuff the bill, but with nationalized health care, we have to rely on the federal government to do our negotiating for us--and we all know how effective the federal government is at controlling costs.

Re:Will more government really fix health care?

[SMN]

Actually, the rising cost of health care relative to goods shouldn't be so hastily blamed on government or bureaucracy - without any government interference, the cost of health care should be expected to rise rapidly over time. This is due to an exconomic phenomenon known as the "cost disease of the service sector," also known as Baumol's disease.

Baumol's disease is named after William Baumol, Professor Emeritus of Economics at Princeton University and current Professor of Economics an New York University, who deduced that labor productivity rises much faster - and therefore prices should fall faster - in the manufacturing sector than in the services sector (the services sector being where the product being sold is provided directly by a person, like a doctor or a teacher, rather than indirectly through physical goods). Health care is, of course, part of the services sector. Your expectation that health care, left alone over time, should stay the same price relative to wages is actually incorrect.

For a great explanation of Baumol's disease and its application to education (which, like health care, is part of the services sector), see this New York times article.

That's not to say that regulation hasn't created a mess of health care. But then again, you can also blame lack of government regulation for letting HMOs become oligopsonies (a few slightly-distinct buyers of a good, as opposed to a oligopoly which is just a fre sellers of a good; note that in this case oligopsony/oligopoly are only a few steps above monopsony/monopoly), or for letting the drug companies become monopolies (while they still hold the exclusive patent over a new drug) or monopsonies (when their patent expires and the limited generic competition comes into play).

Re:Will more government really fix health care?

[Anonymous Coward]

Want to cut health costs in the US? Follow the advice of Dick the Butcher from Henry VI - First thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.

Re:Will more government really fix health care?

[z4ce]

Actually, this guy adjusted in terms of "work-time" rather than dollars. That should adjust for the effect you just mentioned.

Re:Will more government really fix health care?

[Zach Baker]

I don't think it would. I believe cost disease raises even the relative worth of labor-dependent work.

Many things are affordable to everyone because technology has improved to the point that they don't take weeks of an trained artisan's time to produce anymore. Take watches for example. Cost disease is simply the flipside of this phenomenon.

I once wondered how past generations could afford things that seemed like luxuries, like locally-produced handmade furniture and elaborate handcarved masonry on buildings. It's because we've suffered from cost disease since then. Back then, making furniture with hand tools was a pretty productive occupation. These days it's pretty unproductive, practically wasteful. The only way to make it work economically is to charge a lot more for the product. And similarly, the cost of labor to carve gargoyles and other decorations into a stone building by hand was pretty low compared to the cost of labor involved in the entire construction.

Luckily, surgeons and the like can rely on a steady demand for their services, so although they have a hard time becoming more productive, they can simply keep raising prices.

Re:Will more government really fix health care?

[ExoticMandibles]

No, I'd be more likely to blame government regulation for HMOs becoming oligopsonies. The HMO Act of 1973 gave HMOs a distinct, artificial advantage in the market.

And if you look further back, the reason comprehensive health insurance (as opposed to catastrophic health insurance) even exists is--once again!--because of government interference in the economy. During the second world war, the Federal Government enacted strict wage controls. This meant that companies could no longer compete for employees in the market based on price. So employers began competing based on other benefits, one being more comprehensive health insurance.

Certainly, there is truth to Baumol's conjecture. I would not expect the cost of labor-intensive services to drop at the same rate as manufactured goods. But it is foolish to dismiss the increased costs in health care to Baumol's Disease. You seem to claim Baumol's disease requires service-sector wages to rise "rapidly", regardless of other factors. My understanding of Baumol's disease suggests service-sector wages will track the rise (and therefore fall) of wages in other industries. If wages have stayed the same for the last thirty years, I suggest to you that Baumol's disease has little or no bearing.

Also, I'll point out that my mother has been a practicing neurologist for twenty-five years, and her income has not increased at anywhere near the rate with which health care costs have risen. Indeed, Medicare continues to drop the fees they are willing to pay doctors for performing the same services.

(Sorry for all the Harry Browne articles, but he explains things very clearly and I knew where to find them.)

Marijuana Issue

[twilson650]

Why don't you come over to my place and we'll "discuss" the marijuana issue, and roll our own grass roots movement by the pool :-)

Seriously, though, how seriously are you taking yourself here, as a potential governor? Though I am more dissappointed in Arnold from Diff'rent Strokes. There's a guy who is not living up to his full comedic potential in this race. Nothing worse than someone who entered this race obviously as a joke, then goes on talk shows trying to talk seriously about issues.

Have you considered running an anti-campaign? For example, a vote for me is a vote against the absurdity of the system. Or take a line from that old Richard Prior movie, "Brewster's Millions" and urge the voters to choose "None of the Above." You're not trying to convince anyone that you've been planning your entrance into politics since before August, are you? Do you see in this race an inverse relationship between the serious qualifications of a candidate and the amount of media exposure?

And my final question, "Whatchoo talkin' 'bout?"

Re:Marijuana Issue

[NullProg]

Nothing worse than someone who entered this race obviously as a joke, then goes on talk shows trying to talk seriously about issues.

Tis why I patiently wait to hear from Gallager at the debates. Did you see his platform list here:

http://sledge-o-matic.com/html/platforms.htm.

My favorite:
11. ...Because he's never getting out, to save tax payer money, cancel all remaining Charlie Manson parole board hearings.

Enjoy,

marijuana

[Anonymous Coward]

How are you as a California Governor going to legalize a drug that is illegal on the federal level? Since it is federally illegal, you would not be able to use it as a means of relieving the budget deficit.

How does it feel?

[DA_MAN_DA_MYTH]

To just had $3500 of your own or raised money Terminated?

Funding

[Etyenne]

Who is funding your campaign ?

If I vote for you...

[Anonymous Coward]

...do I get a nudey pic?

The Chickens have come home to roost.

[mschuyler]

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?

Georgy has cool stickers!

[scupper]

Check out this Georgy for Governor sticker!
http://www.cafeshops.com/georgyforgov.6456758

Views on RIAA and SCO

[corgicorgi]

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?

Drugs and Taxes!

[watchful.babbler]

Okay, so I admit that it's not much of a campaign slogan, but here's the related questions:

1) You suggest that California should legalize marijuana use. However, federal pre-emption of drug legalization under the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (AKA the Controlled Substances Act) takes precedence over any state decriminalization of drug use. How would you avoid what could be a particularly nasty battle between state and federal control?

2) Although you propose several major spending initiatives, including a "clean elections" law and a health-care system along the lines of Vermont's, you also state that balancing the budget is a priority. Obviously, the only way to reconcile these priorities is to raise taxes, as you acknowledge.

If we conservatively assume that adding new and restoring existing funding for projects only reopens the budget gap to where it was prior to the May Revision, some $38.2 billion must be recovered to balance the state's budget. Almost all of this will have to come out of the three general fund taxes (personal, sales, and corporate).

To give an idea of the numbers we're talking about, if we rolled back the California tax cuts of the mid-1990s, we would recover only around $5 billion (estimated as the revenue loss for FY 1999-2000 due to the tax cuts).

Having said that, what kind of increase in the various tax rates are you contemplating (income rate increases, capital gains, tobacco, etc)? Are there any major program reductions you support? Do you propose to shift burdens onto local governments to help close the gap?

Naken Pictures?

[AssTard]

I couldn't find the naked pictures on the web site there. Could you please provide the link for your naked pictures. Thank You, In Advance.

Which distro?

[ProfessionalCookie]

How are we to start a proper flame war without knowing which distro this guy uses?

Re:Which distro?

[WebMasterJoe]

How are we to start a proper flame war without knowing which distro this guy uses?

How are we gonna start a proper flame war without knowing "this guy"'s gender? See exhibit A.

Re:Which distro?

[AssTard]

That's a chick, dumbass!

The goatse vote

[Anonymous Coward]

What is your platform on goatse.cx? The gaping anus vote is a minority in America that must be heard, so I want to know what you plan to do to improve the rights of those who gape their huge mis-shapen anuses. Oh, on a slightly different subject: lol?

imigrants

[Master Controll Prog]

What about spelling? Will this subject be stressed in schools?

Do you have a boyfriend?

[gnovos]

If not, what's your number? Hell, gimmie your number, even if you do!

Re:Do you have a boyfriend?

[Anonymous Coward]

ew! A gay!

Re:Do you have a boyfriend?

[Anonymous Coward]

she is married dumbass....see the ring on her finger in the second pic?

Re:Do you have a boyfriend?

[Anonymous Coward]

wrong hand
now who is the dumbass?

Re:Do you have a boyfriend?

[Anonymous Coward]

HAHAHA christ you're stupid

RTFA newb

Re:Do you have a boyfriend?

[Anonymous Coward]

She or him

NAKED, I MEANT NAKED PICTURES

[AssTard]

I apologize for the confusion. Thank You

A public question

[corgicorgi]

Why does a slight tax increase cost me $200, and a substantial tax cut save me $3?

Content vs. Tech

[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.

Re:Content vs. Tech

[Dr.Dubious DDQ]

I realize that this is mostly a federal matter as far as the law and politics[...]

...which leads into what I'd like to know - what can you/will you do at the state level as Governor to deal with the problems caused by this dichotomy (the fight between the 'content' industry and the technical industry in California), and what can/will you do that may help resolve these problems on a Federal level?

Re:Experience [Addendum]

[spamchang]

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

Illegal Immigration Flamefest

[krysith]

Ok, I've got karma to burn, and I'm getting kind of tired of the anti-immigrant flavour here on /., so I present for your reading pleasure a few points:

1) Illegal immigrants, in general, would prefer to be legal immigrants, pay taxes, etc. They are not allowed that option. It is very difficult to volutarily become a citizen, much more so than it was for the immigrant ancestors of the majority of the respondents, I would wager... My ancestors came over on the Mayflower, and fought in the Revolutionary War, and they had no problem letting the rest of y'all in. It wasn't too good for the native americans, but it was a very good deal for US. If you really have a problem with illegal immigration, MAKE IMMIGRATION LEGAL.

2) The problem faced by emergency rooms and hospitals having to pay for the care of illegal immigrants is not confined to the illegal immigrant population. It's not like the illegal immigrants get indigent care and the native indigents don't. The real problem is that most immigrants (illegal and legal) are fairly poor, and thus require indigent care. If we had a bunch of rich illegal immigrants coming in, I don't think people would be complaining. But of course, you are going to bitch about how much money that drains from our economy. Well, how much do your kids contribute towards their medical care? Nothing until they grow up. Well, in a few generations when the immigrant populations grow up, you'll see plenty of contributions. Ask the Irish, Italians, Polish, etc. You know, the relative newcomers.

3) The prichardson post which was modded to oblivion had a number of factual errors in it, however he was right in spirit. Illegal immigrants contribute much. However, they have many problems (drugs, crime, etc) which are associated with both poverty and a shadowy legal status. The shadowy legal status can be fixed by opening up immigration. Poverty will have to be worked out of, the same as most immigrant groups have done. Question: how many of your ancestors were illegal immigrants? How many would have been if today's immigration laws were in effect in 1800?

Looking forward to getting flames from all over, in the name of maybe changing some minds,
krysith

Re:Illegal Immigration Flamefest

[Anonymous Coward]

If you really have a problem with illegal immigration, MAKE IMMIGRATION LEGAL.

Immigration is LEGAL. It is ILLEGAL to just hop over the border and cavort about as if you were actually a US citizen. I have little desire to support the people that live in this country legally, nevermind those that are here illegally and have their children's healthcare, education, etc all paid for.

People that have money are educated, work hard (generally), etc, are welcomed to this country because they will have a useful position here.

They might contribue work, but they certainly drain more than it is worth.

You can end your liberal bullshit right now, no one wants to hear it.

Re:Illegal Immigration Flamefest

[krysith]

If immigration is so legal, then why do I have friends who are *fucking nuclear physicists* who have to wait years to become US citizens? If becoming a US citizen was a cheap and easy process, you wouldn't see much if any illegal immigration.

If you have a problem with a drain from social programs, give them an exemption. Most illegal immigrants come here for the jobs, not the welfare. If they want welfare, they are much better going to France, anyways.

What you don't seem to realize is that every engineer, scientist, doctor, etc. who was born and educated here had parents or grandparents who came to this country, usually as poor immigrants exactly like the ones who are trying to come over now. They didn't become what they did because of something in the water. They came to a society where you can work your ass off and your kids will have a better life than you did, no matter how poor you are. That has been America's promise, and is the reason people want to come here.

I think our fundamental disconnect is that you think that everyone who comes to America wants to leech off the system. What you don't realize is that we are doing a very good job of denying citizenship to exactly the kind of people who we want to come here.

You'd deny your own great-grandparents citizenship.

Does Linux use bestow geekdom?

[syncrodave]

While trying to stay out of the main areas of the fray, I think that it is funny that the use of linux makes him a "geek candidate". With all of the major distributions attempting to make it easier to use linux and with the battlecrys from the purists saying "you can do everything with linux" does it really seem like that much of a feat to run linux anymore?

I think it would be more impressive to say "I successfully and reliably use Windows".

Just a thought

Hot

[pudge]

You are obviously going for the "hot chick" vote; are you afraid of losing votes to "model" Angelyne or porn star Mary Carey? What about Larry Flynt?

I wonder...

[Anonymous Coward]

Out of the many people who signed the petition for this recall, how many will actually vote?

While I don't agree with the recall, I really hope people who have a problem will actually vote now that there is a lot of people for them to chose from.

Even though this has turned into a circus, I hope that people will treat this election seriously. Not doing so can screw people even more then the current situation.

So vote for Garry Coleman, Arnold, etc, but only if you really support their views on the issues and seriously feel that they will do their job and be a better governor. By this I don't mean "well anyone is better then Davis, so I'll vote for the Terminator(TM)," I mean "this candidate will do the best job, will take the action needed, and I support their views."

As for me, I will not vote for those who don't take this re-election seriously. While Arnold may have had some issues I could agree with, his treating this as a joke by announcing his running on a late night talk show killed his chances for me. If candidates don't want take this re-election seriously, then I won't take them seriously and will not consider voting for them.

THANK YOU CHEEZEDAWG

[Militant Libertarian]

I agree with this guy in full. California's capital flight is a direct result of their "oh damn those rich people" attitude.

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.

Over taxation leads to less revenue and hindered economies. It's a lose lose situation, unless you just really hate the rich.

Re:THANK YOU CHEEZEDAWG

[Anonymous Coward]

Because if it's the ladder,

the LADDER? AHAHHAHAH! Congratulations, you are the dumbest person on Slashdot today! Post your credit card information to claim your prize!

Re:THANK YOU CHEEZEDAWG

[Anonymous Coward]

THANK YOU CHEEZEDAWG (Score:1)
by Militant Libertarian (696302)

Of course this guy has a balanced view that considers multiple possibilities beyond A=A, right?

Re:THANK YOU CHEEZEDAWG

[stdarg]

Some time ago, I read an article in the wallstreet journal that quoted roosevelt on the issue of a progressive income tax (rich people paying more).

I don't remember the quote off-hand, but he basically said that rich people should pay more taxes because they benefit more from the government. And if you think about it, it's totally true. Take copyrights for instance. While everybody can benefit from copyright, who benefits the most? The only reason the RIAA is able to go after file sharers is because of a law passed in our name and enforced by "common" people. So why shouldn't the member companies of the RIAA, and by extension the biggest (richest) shareholders, owe more to the government?

Re:THANK YOU CHEEZEDAWG

[Anonymous Coward]

ahem. that should be A==A.

Great leaders have great advisors...

[Sontas]

You are 26. I am a couple weeks short of being 26. Most of my friends are about the same age as you and I. What in your 26 years of life makes you think you are qualified to be the governor of the State of California? I can only assume you have never held any elected or appointed office in any segment of government since I didn't see it listed in my reading of your website.

Given your presumed lack of experience and ability to hold the office you are seeking, who will you be appointing as your advisors upon becoming governor and what are their qualifications?

Re:Great leaders have great advisors...

[HTMLSpinnr]

In her defense, she has no more political experience than Arnold.

Re:Great leaders have great advisors...

[forkboy]

And she's probably a lot smarter.

Re:Great leaders have great advisors...

[Sontas]

Perhaps, if you think that political experience is something removed from that of life experience you would be correct. Life experience translates into political experience, though. Not necessarily one-to-one, but it certainly counts.

This doesn't mean that she can not be an effective governor. My question merely asked for her to provide some proof that she has the wherewithall to be governor and that she has the necessary ability to choose good advisors, and by implication to delegate responsibilties appropriately.

Bush was (and to some extent continues to be) plagued by people claiming he is dumb, ignorant, too young, and/or not capable of being president of the country. He addressed this during the election, in part, by making it known who a few of his key advisors and cabinet members would be. Powell, Rice, Rumsfeld, and even his father were floated as being people he would be depending on to help him make his decisions. His selection of Cheney as VP also gave him necessary creadibility and reassured the electing public that he was at least able to see his shortcomings and select people to fill in the holes where it was necessary.

Georgy could do a lot for her cause by taking on a similar strategy and giving people the names of some of the people she will be depending on who carry with them some clout and will allow people to look past her perceived inherent deficiencies as a very young, female, girl-next-door type candidate for the 3rd largest state in the union. Even the most liberally minded will need some kind of reassurance like this before they will be able to vote for her.

Lastly, this isn't some dustbowl state that has a minimal contribution/impact in the nation at large. This state has an economy larger than almost all the countries on the planet. Arguably the US's economy continues a too slow recovery because the California and New York State economies continue to drag.

She seeks to take on a huge responsibility. A 50 year old well versed in the art of economic, social, and security policy making and political machinery would be challenged. Georgy wants people to accept a 26 (almost 27) year old whom has a wopping few post-college years of real world work experience, no husband or children (at least none mentioned on what I've read of the website), and probably still rents (I don't know, but a safe guess) to do it. She has *a lot* to prove, regardless of her ideas on the issues, before she will be considered a leader capable of filling the role she seeks. Arnold and others have varrying degrees of convincing to do too, but Georgy has quite a bit more... and rightly so.

Re:Great leaders have great advisors...

[FreshFunk510]

Obviously you've never read Ender's Game. :P

Re:Great leaders have great advisors...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, and I bet she was bred for the specific purpose to be the governor of California too. Her brother is probably the one leading humanity to victory against the space aliens.

Re:Great leaders have great advisors...

[FreshFunk510]

Hey, anythings possible. :P

Re:Great leaders have great advisors...

[Anonymous Coward]

Shit, I know people who are 50 who don't even know how to tie thier shoe laces - I rather give someone who is 26 (I am born in 1977 and my birthday is a couple of days away) a chance to try something new.

Too Liberal

[edmunz]

She's hot and a geek but too liberal for my taste. w00t!

You do realize...

[wazzzup]

that since you've agreed to be interviewed by Slashdot that, right now, gallons of sperm are being spilled as a result of thousands of geeks flogging their dolphins to your picture.

Does this affect your campaign in any way?

I don't think this is super appropriate

[willis]

Although it speaks to a 'geek concern', I'd rather have a question more relevant to running the state as a whole be asked.

Something like... "How are you going to defend accusations that you're too young?"

Jobs

[krysith]

Ok, I have a question or two for you:

The population of the US in the 1790 census was 3,893,874.

The current US population is somewhere around 280 million.

Are there less than 4 million jobs in the US?

Where did all those jobs come from?

Re:Jobs

[Patik]

Good point.

(I was just throwing my comment out there to start a conversation, I'm not econ expert)

georgy has issues?

[Anonymous Coward]

there's a link on the front page to read more about her "issues"... this is one of the reasons why i stopped dating and got married, i was too tired of listening to chick's issues... why would i want to read about a girl's issues who isn't even going to blow me?

Energy policy

[HarveyBirdman]

Would you be willing to sit down and discuss current advances in nuclear energy generation with established and recognized scientific leaders from the field (from both the power generation and waste handling sides of the technology) and experienced personel from France's nuclear energy system? All I ask is that you hear them out with an open mind.

How can you compete...

[PetoskeyGuy]

With Tax-deducatable Lap-Dances?

The SPAM Question.

[Alkaiser]

With high profile names like Arnold...well...Arnold from Diff'rent Strokes, it's unlikely that you'll be getting much press, but in the event you get invited to a debate, or can bring up a stance on a subject that the other candidates will have to respond to:

Now that we've got some protection from telemarketers do you plan for consumers to actually get some legal SPAM protection in the state? It seems like something that can get easily passed (simply ignoring the SPAM lobbyists.) and something that can actually be accomplished in one's brief recall term.

On a side note, if you actually want to get elected, get the word out to colleges that your plan is for all state-run campuses not to have classes begin before noon.

The college student population is more than enough to beat out the divided factions taht are voting for the other candidates, and you'll have it in the bag. Go Geek Party!

comments:

[dedicke]

5 minutes spent on this chick's website and one thing is obvious: she is dealing in her looks and her appeal to geeks to a. make money and b. get some publicity.

her ideas are nothing more than "ideas" and with no solid way to implement them. universal health care? yeah, thats what california needs right now!

gay marriages and legalizing marijuana? hell, why not? at this point you might as well tack those on to your campaign.

putting this cute as a button 26 year old in charge of a huge portion of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is laughable to say the least.

everyone has the right to run if they qualify, but for slashdot to rally behind this candidate would be a mistake.

I do: Do you think the recall is fair?

[WalterDGeranios]

But each vote to not recall Davis is essentially a vote for Davis. Which means if he is recalled with 60% of votes 40% of voters voted for him. If the candidate who then wins only got 25% of votes then how is this justified?

There are two factors that distinguish the real situation from what is described here.

A vote for recall isn't merely a vote for another candidate; it's a vote that the current governor should not be allowed to complete his term.

Anyone who votes "no" on the recall-Davis question will still have his vote for another candidate counted.

Is s/Wisdom/Intelligence/g ?

[Uggy]

Georgy, you are obviouly cute and young. How does this qualify you to be governor of the 5th largest economy in the world? You say you're intelligent? Okay, I'll grant you that, but you will be working with legislators, judges, and politicians that could be your father. How do you get them to take you seriously?

Also....

[petshopboy_bra]

Even thought she's not the kind of girl that would stop
a street, u all /.'ers might agree that it's much better than a room full of ball-scratchers (my math logics class at the CS bachelor degree).

But as always, geeks and nerds are very strange things

Geek Governor?

[blinkylights]

What should we assume about your candidacy by the fact that your web page doesn't validate?

Re:Geek Governor?

[ihummel]

Neither does /. for that matter.

Re:Geek Governor?

[dtobias]

It's also in a .com domain, rather than the more proper .org for a noncommercial campaign site. I'd expect better of a Real Geek.

Education

[tpengster]

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?

Yes, make them legal

[krysith]

I agree. I have a good friend from Romania. He has been here since he was 12. Both his parents are naturalized citizens. He has grown up, gone to college, worked for IBM. He's ~still~ a Romanian citizen. Not for lack of trying to be a US citizen - after all, this is his home. If he were ever deported "home", I'm not sure if he speaks the language well enough to get by. Why should it be so hard for him to get his citizenship?

I also know a beautful Brazilian woman (is there any other kind?) who recently had to move back to Brazil. Because of 9/11 stuff, INS would only issue her six week passes in the US, between which she had to return to her country of origin. She had to give up a highly succesful career as an architect here in the US because she couldn't afford 9 round-trip plane tickets to Brazil a year.

When are your fellow Republicans going to put up a sign at the border saying "Sorry, folks. We don't want to be the U.S. anymore! Try China".

Voter apathy

[SmallFurryCreature]

First of I am not an american. I am dutch. The reason I still care is that because no matter how stupid, idiotic, moronic, braindead and anal americans attempt to be. Give us 10 years and we will improve on it. Calefornia privatised the electricity and now got brownouts? Ha, we did that in 2 yrs time. I have had more brownouts in this year then in the entire rest of my life and I am old.

Okay given that, a big reason for voter apathy is often that people can't see any difference between the candidates. In holland we got about a dozen parties withabout half of them big enough to make a difference. In america it is only 2. However in this election you have a couple of dozen candidates and not even the greatest cynic can claim they are spouting the same old lines.

Also a cause for voter apathy is said to be that the voter can't see what the goverment is doing. Well with all the brownouts and the enron/worldcom trouble I should this could have woken the voter up that they need a good goverment to represent them.

Nonetheless on youre weblog you say that you expect the turnout to be oven lower then when gray davis was elected. If all this can't get the voter intrested then what can? You now got superstars, nutcases, pornstars and (sorry about this) you and yet you expect even fewer people to give a damn. Is democarcy ultimatly always going to go down to a minority voting or is it perhaps time to introduce mandatory voting?

She's so cute!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

She's so cute..... but why do her political views have to be almost completely opposite of mine?? *cries*

Democracy, popularity and grassroots

[lightcycle]

You talk much about your campaign being a grassroots movement, do you think that there are too few grassroots movements and too much corporate sponsorship? Is this a problem for democracy, and in that case what can be done about it?

Would there be more grassroots movements in American politics if there were a larger number of large political parties?

Lastly, Arnold may win; are you afraid that he may win due to his Hollywood fame rather than his political ability, and is that threatening to further turn political elections into glittering galashows rather than debates of political issues?

How about this?

[Anonymous Coward]

How would you deal with your vagina being pounded into a sloppy, wet mess by the Living Incarnation of Pure Evil? You know where to find me.

I just donated

[Blarneystonejeff]

Come on people. A slashdot reader for Governor. What could be better. I've read her site and she looks like a great candidate.

Re:I just donated

[doyoudig]

Please --- stop masturbating to her picture and recognize the fluff that she is... I expect her to say at any moment: "you cant hug your children with Nuclear Arms"..

Question

[Anonymous Coward]

What is the best pie?

New Ad Slogan?

[jmt9581]

Have you ever thought of using the advertising slogan "Georgy Russell: Taking the Slashdot Effect to the Polls."

:)

Is CA really controlled by businessmen?

[geekee]

"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?

That site is freaking hillarious!

[gfxguy]

That's the funniest thing I've seen in a long time, especially the Steve Ballmer one!

What's your stats...?

[Anonymous Coward]

As in:

• Number of computers
• OS that you run
• Number of MP3s
• What programming languages are you fluent with...

Sex appeal

[Anonymous Coward]

Georgy,

Are you willing to go the extra mile and have hot geek-sex with your supporters in order to win the election?

Re:Sex appeal

[Anonymous Coward]

I wanna be her Monica.

The recall is about to get worse...

[precogpunk]

If Arnold wins there will be a Total Recall!

Bothered?

[krysith]

"If the person can't be bothered to go through the immigration process"

Try going through the immigration process next time you have a few decades to spare. I know a few people who have been waiting for INS to finish letting them become citizens for MORE THAN TEN YEARS. Becoming a US citizen is almost as hard as becoming a Roman citizen once was (they had to spend 25 years fighting in the legions).

Re:Bothered?

[kbielefe]

There is a such thing as a "legal alien." You don't have to be a citizen to legally work in the United States.

Re:Bothered?

[krysith]

Oh, I know. I work with many.

Why, if they are working in the US, live in the US, and want to be US citizens, shouldn't they become US citizens? Why make it hard? I mean, if someone wants to join your team, why make it hard for them? Why would I rather have that great programmer down the hall owe his allegiance to Russia rather than the US? Especially when in his heart, he wants to be an American?

Perhaps making a person wait ten years is our way of weeding out the uncommited. Kind of like a fraternity hazing.

plurality

[Mobster75]

According to Merriam-Webster, plurality means:

a number of votes cast for a candidate in a contest of more than two candidates that is greater than the number cast for any other candidate but not more than half the total votes cast

So its just whoever out of all the 200 candidates gets the most votes wins.

SCO name change or problem

[Kirellii]

In order to balance the California Budget, would you consider new corporate taxes on derived products so that you could take advantage of the SCO windfall or do you support the movement of SCO to a tax free zone so that they can avoid bankruptcy? Since SCO and AT&T originally caused the problem through nefarious contract dealing, would you consider punishment by transferring all state phone plans to Nextel so that they "can hear you now?" Finally, would you consider the migration of Redmond into Northern California to avoid the much anticipated release of crustal energy of magnitude 10 in Seattle so that additional revenues can be received for no material product or do you believe in live and let live of Open Release Products and as Arnold would say "To Heck with Redmond". Thank you for your considersation.

Hollywood?

[Mobster75]

But that's the difference between us and the rest of the world. We have a Hollywood.

The rest of the world also has a few Hollywoods. I know of Cine Citta' in Italy (city of cinema), and Bollywood in India (nickname coming from Bombay, where all their big movie studios are).

;)

Sadly...

[gfxguy]

The key to a good election is an informed electorate. All the commercial time in the world isn't going to amount to a hill of beans to someone whose researched the candidates and understands their positions on the issues that are important to them.

Frankly, you want a better election? Limit voting to those who can name the candidates for the office they are voting for. You want a better election? You should only get a voter registration card after passing a test on basic principles of how the government works - like a drivers license.

Oh, I know, driving is a privelage and voting is a right, but as long we keep it that way it's a popularity constest, and as long as it's a popularity contest, the person who spends the most is likely to win.

The key is not restricting donations (which may be a start), but making sure the voters understand the decisions they are making.

MOD PARENT UP!

[shaitand]

MOD UP!

Re:MOD PARENT UP!

[Anonymous Coward]

somebody modded it flamebait, but thanks anyways,

Seth

Re:MOD PARENT UP!

[shaitand]

sorry man. She is fine ya know?

Re:MOD PARENT UP!

[Anonymous Coward]

All she needs is an eighties big-hair haircut, and she'll be perfect!

Seth

Re:Diner and a movie

[Anonymous Coward]

Only if they are programmers too!!!

Good laws

[krysith]

Yes, we have laws, and everyone should follow them.

This becomes infinitely easier when we have good laws.

I doubt it was against the law to come to this country, get a job, and follow the laws like a regular person when your ancestors came here. Try doing that now. And having all those immigrants come here before really hurt this country, didn't it? Or are Mexicans really that different from the Italians and Irish?

(Oh, oh! I know, it's 'cause they're CATHOLIC!)

Whats your /. Karma?

[Anonymous Coward]

its the obvious question.

What better way to understand the political skills of a geek?

Part of the outsourcing is California's fault.

[raehl]

California leads the nation in progressive labor benefits. These benefits have costs to employers, which get translated to higher costs for consumers. The higher your worker's comp insurance gets, the higher your "Paid Family Leave" costs are, the more attractive foreign labor becomes - at least for jobs that you can move. If you're going to 'tax' employers into paying twice as much for labor, don't be surprised when you have half as many jobs.

People want both more benefits and cheaper stuff. People need to realize that they can not have both. If workers get more benefits, the stuff they produce, an thus buy, gets more expensive - everything has to be paid for somewhere.

Re:Part of the outsourcing is California's fault.

[Henry V .009]

That is perfectly true. However, it begs the question: should Californian employee benefits have to compete with Indian benefits? Unless you are suggesting that Californians live like they are in the third world in order to make their labor competitive, out-sourcing will remain a problem. Out-sourcing is a problem in all U.S. states, not just California. The solution of working for less money and less benefits isn't a solution at all.

Environment

[eaddict]

What are you going to do to protect what is left of government lands in CA? Right now Bush is clear cutting and putting roads everywhere. When we visited a few years ago we were told something like less than 3% of the original redwood trees are left. Pollution and over-population are taking and trashing all the free space. I hope you don't plan on selling CA owned property to raise $$$ for government.

Re:Environment

[doyoudig]

and dont forget about the chipmunks..... get a life.....

Arnold Drummond? ELL YEAH

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd vote for little arnold anyday. Willis could be his secretary of state.

Okay, I'll ask it....

[LittleGuy]

"Boxers or Briefs?"

(Or, in this case, "Cotton, Silk, Low-rider, String, Thong, or Commando?")

And before you mod me down, I just want to see if she handles this without coming across as a glorified asshat of a politician, replying "*snif* I won't even *dig*-nify this with an answer! You should be ah-*shamed* of asking it!" (Yes, I'm looking at you, Newt Gingrich.)

That's why...

[Smeagel]

Many states don't have sales tax on food -- some don't even have tax on clothing. A few examples I know for sure of states who don't apply sales tax to food are Ohio, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Montana, and New Jersey. Those are just states I know for absolute sure. Here's an interesting fact, last summer I worked in the East Bay area of SF. This summer I work in Columbus Ohio. Making essentially the same amount, I pay 10% more tax on my paycheck in Ohio. Of course sales tax is 6% here and was something like 13% in SF, so that could be a big part of the difference. And if you think that Rich people benefit from sales tax then you need to think again. If they don't spend the money it's likely in stocks, which get taxed HEAVILY if you're rich -- and that's just for them NOT spending their money. When they do spend it they spend significantly more and obviously pay significantly more in sales tax. Damned if you do damned if you don't.

Re:That's why...

[SquadBoy]

I agree with you on the stock thing. It is criminal that we tax investement and savings the way we do. As for when rich people spend they spend significantly more. No as a perecentage of income they do *spend* more and taxes are all about percentages. You are right about some states not having a tax on food. I don't think they should have a tax on anything. The governement should have a set amount of money they can spend and get that not by taking it out of paychecks but by having everybody figure out the amount and paying it at the end of the year. For anything else they should be forced to ask for every dollar . We could get the tax rate down pretty low by doing that.

Re:That's why...

[Anonymous Coward]

California isn't one of them. Montana doesn't have any sales tax.

A rich man making 10 times as much as a poor man may spend up to twice as much. But he's putting his extra money into tax exempt or deferred investments like IRAs and a 401K, and getting a huge chunk of income tax back from interest on the mortgage for his million dollar home, and saving more because he can afford an accountant to find the loopholes and keep track of his "expenses."

How can you make this work?

[metachimp]

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.

Eh? She's average for women her age.

[raehl]

She's cute, but if you're saying she's remarkably attractive, you need to get away from your computer monitor more.

She's way more remarkable for her intelligence/geekiness than her appearence. Taken together she's a definite winner, but on the basis of picture alone, I'm unimpressed.

Copyright System

[Blarneystonejeff]

Do you believe the copyright system is working just fine the way it is or do you think that they're needs to be some major changes? How is the current copyright system stifling innovation? What can a major overhaul of the copyright system do for innovation?

Davis....

[tenchiken]

During the last election cycle, Davis basically used Democratic Machine votes to go in and "spike" the results to favor the more conservitive (and out of touch) canidate Simon instead of the moderate Riordan. This was because Riordan would have beat him like a drum. If Riordan had passed the primary Davis would not have made it this far. The only reason that he did make it this far is not because people like him, but because a monkey could have run a better campeign then Simon did.

Your point (which is strait out of Democratic play books) ignores the first part of the vote which is basically "should Davis stay in office?"

Davis badly mismanaged the power crisis (and tried to make the federal government make it worse) and badly mismanaged his own budget proccess, that is what is being voted on here.

whoah!! holy hot chick

[BobRooney]

Can I donate to the "See the hot chick on his site naked" campaign fund?

Venusian? Illegal alien? No, Green.

[aynrandfan]

Being from Venus, would that constitute being an illegal alien ;) ?

But seriously, she seems to be more of a Green than anything else. I don't understand how she (or anyone) can go for state controlled health care and fiscal responsibility at the same time. There was also a good comment made on the wealthy giving to the Democrats. I agree with that; it seems that those who believe in "the common man vs. the rich" tend to be the rich and the powerful.

Imigration

[tenchiken]

Today there is a large class of people who are litterally willing to risk their life to try to come to America to work. Sadly, under the immegration policies forced by both parties these people. When those people do make it here, they end up getting "pseudo-citizinship" in the form of Green Cards which prevents their influnce on America and threatens to make us as cultuarlly stagnant as the Europeans:

Are you in favor of making borders more accessable?

Are you in favor of eliminating Green Cards in favor of blanket Citizinship?

Actually, no

[Curien]

The US electoral system (ie, presidential elections, as every other election is run by the states) is based on a majority. Not on a majority of popular votes, mind you, but on a majority of electoral votes. If no candidate receives a majority of electoral votes, the House decides the winner. This has happened exactly once.

Plurality is, however, the basis for /California's/ electoral system.

Gore cost Nader the election.

[raehl]

If pisses me off to no end that people insist on blaming Nader for Bush being in office. That argument is predicated on the belief that Gore was somehow entitled to any votes that were not going for Bush, and that is ludicrous.

I didn't like Bush. I was not going to vote for Bush. But Gore did not convince me to vote for him either, so I voted for Nader. If Gore had dropped out of the election, Nader would have won.

It's Gore's fault.

The Most Important Question

[Anonymous Coward]

... Will You Marry Me?

signed, A.C.

Where do you work?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm just curious what software compnay you work for. If you get me a job there, I'll definitely vote for you.

Question

[special628]

Will you marry me?

Why should Slashdot readers vote for you?

[maroberts]

Since you read Slashdot, you're aware of the general interests of most of its readers. Where do you stand on issues of particular interest to any California resident Slashdot voters e.g. Microsoft, copyright, SCO, censorship v freedom of speech etc.

You may make your answer to this question as long as you wish... :-)

Simple question.

[martissimo]

Reading your views on taxes, you seem to be a backer of the Keynesian economic theory, you are also for spending as fast as you take it in i.e.

We need to strive towards a system of universal health care similar to Vermont's. We can't allow millions of children to remain without basic insurance,

I have no basic gripes with any of your other issues, but how can you provide this healthcare without cutting budget elsewhere, getting any sort of cut by our states current legislature is a task of epic proportions, as will be running any succesfull campaign based on tax raises...

I may like most of your ideas, and in fact do like them more than any other candidates' proposed ideas so far. Tell me though, we all know this will be a throw-away vote of sorts without a miracle from above, and while principles are great, what makes you so special that i should be willing to forgo a meaningfull vote to make a point (definitely no offense intended here, i really do love your stance on many issues), how can my beliefs lining up with yours make a difference?

Patent issues ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Duh. On her website she states: She has filed for several patents,... Someone should ask her about software patent issues!

MOD ON CRACK!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

This is obviously a (Funny) post and a good diversion from the 100's of /.ed website jokes...

What we really want to know.

[JustAnotherReader]

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.

What would you have done differently than Davis?

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously Davis played a significant role in leading California to this mess. He didn't have to approve the bloated budgets the legislature sent his way (both parties are complicit on this and the new budget is only going to make matters worse since it actually increased spending). Davis probably shouldn't have created all those new government positions for his cronies.

How would you have handled the state's budgets? Since you were in the tech industry, would you have been more likely to be aware of the impending collapse or would industry optimism led you to spend as Davis did?

the poor would be tax-free

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Not if "essentials of life" such as food, clothing, and medicine are exempted from the sales tax. Essentially the poorest of the poor, those living at a mere subsistence level, would be living completely tax-free. Thus a sales tax method is indeed far more fair than an income tax, with its completely arbitrary in inflexible "standard deduction".

A flat income tax is far more fair than a graduated income tax - why should I make proportionally less for a 10% increase of effort than Janitor Joe just because my work is more valuable (i.e. I make more than him)? If we both work 10% harder, why isn't it fair that we both make 10% more? With a graduated tax, he makes 8% more while I only make 7% more. That's what's not fair.

(If you whine about my greater "societal obligation" because of my (hypothetical) greater wealth, how about you let me take care of my obligations? I don't need government telling me what to do. I prefer freedom to your social engineering, thank you very much.)

A sales tax is more ethical than any income tax - why should a third party (government) have any say in my private agreement (i.e. X wages for Y work) to work for an employer? Why should gov't be able to intrude and say, "Employer will still pay X, but employee will only receive X-Z, where Z is an arbitrary figure I will decide"? How can a free market economy be sustained when there is an arbitrary disconnect between what a buyer is willing to spend and a seller is willing to take?

And sales taxes are already too high anyway. The problem? Government's gotten far too big. A free market forces unnecessary and inefficient products and services to die out. Government-controlled markets sustain unnecessary programs and inefficient services, and force you to pay for them. You wouldn't stand for it if a business tried to charge you 4 hours for a 1 hour job, or charged you for extra work you didn't need done...why do you let gov't do it?

-CT

Re:the poor would be tax-free

[lambadomy]

I don't see what any of this (right or wrong) has to do with my post. None of this changes the fact that a straight sales tax as mentioned in the post I replied to is regressive. All of these suggestions you make have at least some merit (a few have a great deal), but why direct them at me?

Thank you

[krysith]

Thank you for standing on your soapbox, AC. I only wish that anti-immigrant opinion on /. was not so strong that you felt the need to post as AC.

[my soapbox]
I think that the main reason most /.ers feel so anti-immigrant has to do with the fact that we are in an economic downturn, and a lot of them are in fear for their jobs. I can understand that. But it doesn't excuse it. It is hypocritical and ignores the lessons of history. Hypocritical unless ones own ancestry is 100% Native American (My ancestors have only been here since 1620, so I realize my family are newcomers). Ignores the lessons of history because immigration has been shown to cause long-term economic improvements, despite short-term economic costs. This is not true only in the case of the US.

I don't want to hear about boo-hoo too much cheap competition. It's funny how many libertarians and republicans are against immigration. You can't consistently be for free trade and against immigration.

I'm a physicist. Most of my compatriots are foriegn born. All that competition is obviously hurting us: the average PhD industrial physicist makes over $100,000. The biggest challenge we currently face? Physicists getting stuck in other countries because the INS is basically being an asshole. Imagine getting around after 9/11 when your name is "Muhammad" and your profession is "Nuclear Scientist". Nope, no searches at the airport on ~that~ guy.

The basic problem is one of fear vs opportunity and long-term interest vs short-term interest. We can ~invest~ in immigration, or we can choose not to. But we know what got us to where we are today. Too many people moving in willing to work for peanuts? That's just another way of saying "too many idle hands, in need of capital and leadership". Instead of bitching about corporate dominance, use your skills, start your own business and 0wnZ0r them! Or sit around and bitch while I hire them. And watch while I 0wnz0r you.
[/my soapbox]

Re:Thank you

[Anonymous Coward]

You stupid ass. Where the fuck do you think the indians came from? They didn't spring from the earth, the came here and took 'possession' just like everyone who came afterwards. All 'property' is a construct of law, custom, and the power to enforce ownership.

You dumbass. You think that because my ancestors came over on boats and I'm against wide-open immigration that I'm a hypocrite? Are you in favor of people not living in mud? Because that's where all life comes from, evolutionarily speaking. Now you're the hypocrite, right? You dumbass.

I read a lot of this bullshit on /. America is, historically, an imigrant nation and has drawn strength from that. Therefore, we should not restrict immigration. Huh? Did I miss a step? You dumbass. Take a fucking logic class. The conlusion does not logically follow the preliminary assumptions. It's a value statement and some people disagree with you. Deal with it.

This country was founded on immigration, therefore we shouldn't stop immigration. We were also founded on killing indians, slavery, religious intollerance, etc. Should we not have stopped those things?

Times change, you fucking dumbass.

Re:Thank you

[krysith]

Well, I see I have your attention.

You are correct that just because the native americans were here before the Europeans came, that does not mean they were here from the beginning of time. However, since immigration to these shores has seriously harmed them, I would have to say that they would not be hypocritical to want to refuse immigration.

However, historically immigration has helped the US. So you think times have changed? In what way? Please be specific. I am listening, and you are welcome to change my mind. But do try using logic. Note that killing indians, having slavery, etc. were things which were good for some people and bad for others. We usually stopped doing those things for moral reasons. Can you please tell me the moral reason for stopping immigration?

Please inform me as to what the values are behind your value statement.

Meetup

[Anonymous Coward]

Since it most likely you wont be able to match campaing fun Schwarzenegger or Huffington will you use Meetup.com or Slashdot.org to build avast network of volunteers?

Would you switch emphasis to the technology, economics and business regulaton? Would you feel that your business experience with in the California tech market be a key distinction against the other canidates?

Would you be willing to use the slashdot effect
on the next major internet poll to boost name recognition?

I've got a question...

[EverDense]

How can you call yourself a "Geek", when you're quite clearly a "Hot Babe"?

Puh-leez, she's using windows

[Bananenrepublik]

Suppose it's her computer on this photo. We can then deduce:
1. she doesn't listen to real music on it - look at those speakers
2. she has an O'Reilly book within reach
3. she knows how to touch-type on a fancy keyboard
4. she uses windows (can anybody say for sure which browser it is
5. whe owns a penguin, but not as a part of her endorsement of Linux, but rather as part of a bigger collection of fluffy animals
6. she doesn't wear pants, but
7. her company's co-founder is her husband, or what is that on her right hand?

Re:Puh-leez, she's using windows

[Anonymous Coward]

From your post we can deduce you are a complete moron in these ways:

1. Just because she has a fancy KB doesn't mean she can touch type.
2. The wedding band is worn on the ring finger of the Left hand. This picture clearly shows that finger to be "marriage free".
3. It's a fucking dolphin, not a penguin.
4. Your penis is too small. (While this has nothing to do with your intelligence, this fact is clealy obvious by the more than 5 points you presented in one post, clearly compensating.)

How much can you bench press?

[e40]

And, if not more than Arnold, do you think this puts you at a distinct disadvantage should the debates turn ugly?

diff you electorate /dev/null

[ElectricRook]

How do you plan to govern a people whose beliefs (based on past initiative success) strongly differ from yours on "the death penalty", and "de-criminalization of drug use".

Qualifications?

[Fastball]

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>

How to balance the budget

[El]

Half the people in the US are in jail on drug-related charges. How much money could California save by releasing all persons convicted of non-violent drug offenses (e.g. possession)? Enough to balance the budget? The governor has the power to pardon any convict; does she also have the power to declare a blanket amnesty?

Re:How to balance the budget

[Antisoul]

>> Half the people in the US are in jail on drug-related charges.

1. 
   
   Wow, I hope you were just trying to make some kind of exaggerated point, because that would mean that there are aproximately 145,880,109 people in jail just for drugs. That doesn't even count people in jail for murder, rape, arson, etc.
   
   America's prison population topped 2 million in june 2002. At least base your examples in reality.
   
   "Seek out the company of those who are searching for the truth. But avoid at all cost those who claim to have found it!" -Anon

Re:How to balance the budget

[El]

Duh! Of course I meant "half the people that are in jail are in jail on drug-related charges". Yes, there really are about 1 million people in jail on drug charges. This is the major reason that our jails are so overcrowded and that we have the highest percentage of our population in jail of any developed nation!

Re:How to balance the budget

[El]

There are between 70,000 and 80,000 inmates in CA. Thousands are released early every month to prevent overcrowding. If we assume 30,000 of these are on drug charges (that's below the national average, but the feds probably book a higher percentage of people on drug charges) and that each one cost $30,000/year to incarcerate, that means it costs California $900 million a year for this small part of the war on drugs. So, to answer my own question, no releasing them in and of itself would not balance the budget. But it would save almost $1 billion a year.

Re:How to balance the budget

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately he's not exagerating to make a point. Half of all US prisoners are there for non violent drug offenses.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030728-12235 0- 2539r.htm

Re:How to balance the budget

[Antisoul]

Even your figure of 1 million people in jail on drug charges is exaggerated. According to The Bureau of Justice Statistics only 20% of the prison population is in for pure drug related crimes.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/prisons.htm

That would make it about 400,000 prisoners in for drug related crimes and according to their stats only about half of that number is in only for drug possesion.

Re:How to balance the budget

[El]

That link states "Drug offenders make up more than half of all federal prisoners." It does not say "non-violent", and does not say "all prisoners". It seems intuitive that federal prisons would have a higher percentage of drug offenders. That means about 75,000 drug offenders at $20,000/year per offender, or $1.5 billion per year that the federal government is spending on prisons alone to fight "the drug war". Have these billions spent had any effect on the supply side of the illicit drug market?

Re:How to balance the budget

[El]

That page states that 20% of offenders jailed by states are there for drug offenses. this page states that more than 50% of federal prisoners are in jail on drug offenses. Neither one gives percentage of local inmates (county, city, etc.) Not sure where you get "half that number" from. The point is, in an era of budget deficits, we're still spending tens of billions of dollars every year fighting "the war on drugs", and it doesn't appear to have effected the supply of drugs at all. Perhaps we would be better off trying to lessen the demand side of the equation. All the criminal drug sellers could be put out of business tomorrow if legal sellers were undercutting their prices (although yes, drug users would still commit crimes).

Tax the rich even more is your answer?

[geekee]

"The truth is, even with the billions in painful cuts already made, California is unable to make the cuts necessary to truly balance the budget. This situation is not new; Republican Governor Pete Wilson faced similarly staggering budget problems when he took office over a decade ago. His solution was to not only cut spending, but to increase revenues by raising rates on the top tax bracket by about one percent. Like Bill Clinton and George Bush Sr., Wilson raised rates on top brackets and the economy soared. He recognized what an impediment to economic recovery the budget crisis was, and stayed honest with Californians about the decisions that had to be made."

Currently, the wealthies people pay the highest percentage of their income in taxes. Yet your solution to the budget crisis seems to be to tax these people even more? Why do you feel it is ethical to unfairly tax the most productive members of Califoria society, to solve California's budget problems, but are unwilling to make the average person take some responsibility for providing tax revenue for service rendered by California govt. for all Californians? As a practical matter, do you think this solution will drive these people away from California, and create an even greater budget problem, rather than solving it?

Re:Tax the rich even more is your answer?

[tunesmith]

Bleah. I realize this question is for her, but I've always hated this question. It's either slanted or ignorant. The simple truth is that $5,000 for someone who makes 200k just isn't worth as much to someone who makes 20k. The wealthiest SHOULD pay the highest percentage of their income in taxes, and the truth is that in many cases they actually DON'T.

Re:Tax the rich even more is your answer?

[FreshFunk510]

Which brings up a good point...

One could also put it in terms of percentage tax of disposable income. The poor, by far, consume the most in terms of the percentage to total income. They also have, by far, the least amount of disposable income. On the other end of the scale, we have the rich who have much more disposable income and, therefore, consume less (in terms of percentage).

Re:Tax the rich even more is your answer?

[Anonymous Coward]

According to the California Budget Project (34K PDF),

Measured as a share of family income, California's poorest families pay the most in taxes. The poorest fifth of the state's non-elderly families, with an average income of $11,100, spent 11.3 percent of their income on state taxes in 2002. In comparison, the wealthiest one percent, with an average income of $1.6 million, spent 7.2 percent of their income on state taxes.

California actually has a regressive(!) tax system. Ms. Russell's balance-the-budget by taxing increasing the taxes of the wealthiest individuals is both fiscally sound and morally justifiable. It is also totally in-line with what other states and the federal government already do. Peter Camejo has pointed out that we would not have had a deficit at all (despite Mr. Davis' amazing ability to squander the surpluses of prosperous times) if the wealthiest 5% were taxed at the same rate as the poorest 5%.

Will increased taxes drive some of the wealthiest individuals out of the state? Probably a few. Are the people who make over a million dollars a year the ones keeping the economy going? Probably not. We'll miss them, but not as much as we'll miss the schools, hospitals, police and other vital services that are going to take the bullet for the financial mess we've got here.

Re:Tax the rich even more is your answer?

[Hittite Creosote]

Oh come on, you're not seriously advocating that you should pay the same amount of tax as Bill Gates are you?

Re:Tax the rich even more is your answer?

[geekee]

" Oh come on, you're not seriously advocating that you should pay the same amount of tax as Bill Gates are you?"

No, but the same percentage. We should have a flat tax.

Re:Tax the rich even more is your answer?

[geekee]

"Bleah. I realize this question is for her, but I've always hated this question. It's either slanted or ignorant. The simple truth is that $5,000 for someone who makes 200k just isn't worth as much to someone who makes 20k. The wealthiest SHOULD pay the highest percentage of their income in taxes, and the truth is that in many cases they actually DON'T."

What gives you the right to keep your money just because you claim to need it more. That's the basis for the current tax system. The government has decided what people should want and need. People are rewarded by the govt. for having children, buying a house, etc. and penalized for making more money. The declaration of Independence talks about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Our tax system takes away the latter two. It says you are a slave if you make money to those who do not make as much money, since taxing you more and them less is the same as giving your money to them. Our tax system makes a mockery of the pursuit of happiness by trying to define what happiness is and rewarding you accordingly. Money has objective value. You have no right to tell someone that a particular some of money is worth less to him because he has more, and that he must give it to you because you have less. Such experiments have been tried by countries such as the USSR, N. Korea, Cuba, etc. There are real cosequences beyond morality for embracing such ideas.

Re:Tax the rich even more is your answer?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Oh come on, you're not seriously advocating that you should pay the same amount of tax as Bill Gates are you?"

No, but the same percentage. We should have a flat tax.

Why? According to your argument, the economy will benefit if the richest people have more money. By that logic, you should pay a much larger fraction of your income in tax than Bill Gates.

Re:Tax the rich even more is your answer?

[aeoo]

The most rich is not necessarily the most productive. I think most riches are the result of speculation at the initial stage and inheritance down the line. None of these result in production or value to society of any kind.

I'm an individualist who believes that if you work hard you deserve rewards. But I find it strongly dubious that any one human being is worth hundred million more times than another. I just don't think that any human is capable of working hundred million times harder than even the most disabled and dim witted human being (or even a dog!). The rewards of the most rich are not commensurate with the effort, in my opinion.

Notice I didn't even mention ethics and that doesn't mean I don't believe in ethics...I just think some of the riches are so ridiculous that one doesn't need to consider ethics in order to see this point.

Re:Tax the rich even more is your answer?

[big-giant-head]

Actully no, these experiments were not tried in communist countries. All the money went to the politically empowered (the ruling caste). What the previous poster said is correct. The middle class (making form 30k to about 120K) drive this economy. If a person has millions, quite likely they will spend it on imports, and sock it away in the bank.

The same money spread out in the middle class will drive millions of jobs, all the consumers out buying houses, cars (even gasp SUV's), microwaves, etc...........

Why do you think the economy was running so well at the height of the dot com bubble?? A couple of trillion dollars was liberated from the banks and went to paying folks nice salaries, and bonuses along with companies buying builidings, computers, office furniture etc.....

The goverment has a right to decide that the money is better off flowing in the economy and generating jobs than sitting in rich persons' bank.

Right now 90% of wealth in this country is owned by 10% or less of the people. That's not right, no matter how you want to look at it. It's affecting the economy (6.2% unemployment with another .2% that have given up finding a job) as the above ratios move i.e. 90% of the wealth being owned by say 5% of the population we will be close to what the communist populations endured during the cold war. Also Unempolyment will rise as well. At that point there will such a small percentage of the money flowing, vs what is locked up, that goverment policies will have little or no effect. We are already getting there.

Most rich people as a percent of thier income usually pay the same or less than most middle class families, because they have write-offs and loop holes that are only available to them.

From those with much, much is expected. If they don't like it than move where???? The EU will tax them worse then the US, same with most asian countries.

Re:Tax the rich even more is your answer?

[Anonymous Coward]

10% of 200K = 20K.
10% of 20K = 2K.

See, the high income person pays more. The current system is more like:

50% of 200K = 100K.
0% of 20K = 0.

This works really well as long as you have enough people making 200K, but there are always fewer high income people than mid to low income people and when they pay the vast majority of the taxes the loss of a single taxpayer's income affects the system more.

This is what happened in CA. Lots of high income tech workers paying high taxes... Money rolling into government... .com bust... Fewer high imcome techies... Oh crap!

Why I would not vote for him:

[yanbusa]

"[Georgy Russell] reads Slashdot,"
We all know what this means. This "future" governor will be spending nights when he should be working for the citizens of CA refreshing and reading Slashdot. I don't hold it against him, of course.

Re:Why I would not vote for him:

[baadfood]

By "reads slashdot" I'd assume that Georgy Russell would have at least followed the links before posting and found out, for instance, that Georgy Russell is a her not a him.

Re:Why I would not vote for him:

[yanbusa]

Yeah, I'll admit my ignorance there. Yet I did take a look at his, I mean her weblog prior to my posting a comment. I guess I just didn't catch the gender. Edit, undo.

Gary Coleman

[Anonymous Coward]

The real issue here is who is the biggest Robotech geek. The choice is obvious...Gary Coleman: http://www.robotech.com/news/viewarticle.php?id=17 8

madhouse

[Hes Nikke]

with everyone and there sister running for the gig, what makes you think you have the slightest chance of winning?

i don't mean to sound negative or anything, it's just that i see high profile names like Arnold Swartzenager and Larry Flint over powering everyone else, just because they happen to be in the public eye a hole hell of a lot more then Georgy Russell.

What makes you THE geek candidate?

[superflippy]

Scour.net co-founder Travis Kalanick is also running for CA governor, focusing on what he calls a "P2P" platform. Why are you a geekier candidate than he is?

She's a Linux advocate eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

So why is she running Windows on her desktop?

http://www.georgyforgov.com/pics.htm

Re:She's a Linux advocate eh?

[Rhone]

From a quick glance at her website, and a read through her blog, I don't see her making any claims to be a "geek" or a Linux user/advocate. It's kind of disappointing that the Slashdot blurb makes it sound like she is using those qualities (in lieu of more politically important issues) to promote herself, and so many of the questions here focus on that. Even the blurb, though, says that she "knows how to run Linux"--not that she uses it as her primary system, or even that she uses it at all.

Re:New study shows that Marajuana use causes denia

[patterner]

Bleh. Harmful, not-harmful, who cares?

The central issue here is not about marijuana's level of harmfulness, but about it's legality. As is clear to most everyone (with half a brain) who really thinks about the issue, there is more than a little something of a double standard here. Among substances that have been shown to be "harmful" are such legal things as alcohol, nicotine, caffeine, saccharin, aspartame, cholesterol, air (in certain parts of the country) and water (in certain parts of the country)!

Somehow I don't think that many (read: any) of these will be made illegal anytime soon, and if I want to give myself cancer by eating 10,000,000 pounds (or whatever the number is) of saccharin, that's my prerogative, and I should have the same choice for all other such "victimless crimes", including currently prohinited drugs and prostitution.

Umm...

[Paulrothrock]

Is "Damn you fine!" a question? :D

Re:Really what are you trying to prove? (WAY OT!)

[swordgeek]

As an outsider, I felt that Gore actually was a better choice. For starters, his actual comment about the internet was fairly legitimate. The way he was misquoted by the press, out of context, was criminal.

Gore has a few brain cells to rub together, and as a democrat, would have been struggling against the people who want to lead the US to a military assault on the world. (Rumsfeld, Cheney, and the other members of the Project for a New American Century.) Even if the first point turned out to be false, the second would have likely led him to an innefectual presidency that wouldn't have threatened the rest of the world. Bush, on the other hand, was hand-selected to take that position and push forward with aggressive regime change.

If for no other reason, Bush was a worse choice simply because he has the support of the people running Washington. The whole WORLD has suffered extensively from his stupidity already, and Helen Thomas (a woman with some insight, intelligence, and experience) has called him "the worse president in American history."

There are no worse choices that anyone could have written in. Rush Limbaugh, Jesse Jackson, and David Duke would all have been better than Bush.

Re:Will show platform/OS Favoratism? What about Ap

[decepty]

I have a solution to the Apple question....
Mac-on-Linux

Now, be honest....

[Cerdo]

Are you running just because you could, or because you should? Either answer is fine with me, since it will show us an honest side of you.

Hmmm

[madenosine]

Are you actually going to make a decent attempt at running? Or are you just trying to squeeze desperate geeks out of money?

Stupid fucking geeks

[Anonymous Coward]

she is just trying to take your money. Anyone who actually intended on being governor wouldnt try to make themselves look attractive in photos.

She just wants stupid, deseperate geeks like you to "donate" money to her.

Any female can steal money from the average slashdotter...

P.S. she is using windows in the photo taken.

Re:Stupid fucking geeks

[Anonymous Coward]

Correct me if I am wrong, but that also looks like some sort of .NET book on her desk. I think she might be M$'s bee-otch.

my question...

[MoxFulder]

Not only do I like your policies, but you're far and away the most gorgeous politician I've ever seen...

If your career takes off and you end up in the DC area, do you want my number? ;-)

Please mod this up - good direct question

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod up! Mod up! Mod up!

We need a direct answer to a direct question about illegal immigration. The other highier mod'ed questions don't directly ask this question.

Must Read Question

[Anonymous Coward]

What do you plan to do for the undead situation in Sunnydale, California? As I understand it, Buffy has been terminated from her job, yet the Hell Mouth is still open in Sunnydale? Sure as hell hope that you dont plan to leave it up to Zander as Davis has repeatedly assured our residents.

What a great candidate

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, let's recall Davis and replace him with someone even more liberal, so she can run California into the ground even faster. Nice choice /. editors.

The Only Important Questions

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you prepared to cut 50% of the state workers in California?

Are you prepared to cut taxes so business come back and you wont have to cut more "precious" government jobs in 5 years?

Finally... are you on drugs?

The money wheel is broken.

[Anonymous Coward]

"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.

Re:The money wheel is broken.

[Jeremi]

I'd say it's about trying to make it so that everyone shares the pain of taxation more equally. If you're rich, you can afford to pay taxes at a higher rate, because your basic necessities are taken care of no matter what -- the extra tax bite comes out of your luxury spending. Whereas for a poor person, extra tax bills eat into his ability to buy necessities, and so causes him much more pain than they would cause the rich guy.

transformation

[sewagemaster]

since you're a geek transforming into a politician, do you see yourself from not getting any sex to being a sex scandel politician icon?

just kidding ;)

State of Copyright

[Blarneystonejeff]

Do you believe the copyright system is working just fine the way it is or do you think that they're needs to be some major changes? How is the current copyright system stifling innovation? What can a major overhaul of the copyright system do for innovation?

Productivity versus Income

[FreshFunk510]

" Why do you feel it is ethical to unfairly tax the most productive members of Califoria society..." First of all, I can see why someone might naively associate income with level of productivity but this, simply, isn't true. (In all fairness I'll admit that I could be wrong but I'd like to see either a scientific study or some sort of economic principle justifying this). The truth is living (period) requires a certain minimum amount of money. Most low income people work several jobs to meet this minimum amount and pay taxes. Most economists would agree that consumption has been keeping the economy afloat. Rich, by getting tax cuts, will most likely not use that income to consume. Most likely they will reinvest in stocks, real estate, etc. The truth is that in a capitalist society the rich get richer. The rich are able to make money merely by having money in the bank due to interest. That being that case, how can anyone really deem their taxes as "unethical" or "unfair"? The rich reap much more benefits than the middle class and the poor. It's not that they don't deserve it or that they dont' earn it, but they still receive it. Everyone works hard but obviously if someone is rich they've enjoyed benefits from society in some form or another that other people have not (such as real estate investments, owning of a business, stock portfolio). So if you think taxing them is unfair then one can easily say it's unfair that the poor and middle class cannot take advantage of these capitalist advantages that the rich have. I'm not saying the rich or poor are "better", but that everyone works hard for their money.

Re:Productivity versus Income

[geekee]

"First of all, I can see why someone might naively associate income with level of productivity but this, simply, isn't true. (In all fairness I'll admit that I could be wrong but I'd like to see either a scientific study or some sort of economic principle justifying this)..."

Money is a respesentation of work. Think of it as a container for storing your work until you need it to barter. The amount of money someone gives you for a product or service is their estimate of what this product or service is worth relative to their time spent working at their occupation. Therefore, there is a definite correlation between productivity and income. Your income is what others estimate your work is worth in terms of their work. This is the best measure available of productivity, since to give value to someone elses work in this manner, you must give of your own work. This is what trade is all about. The only reason money exists is that it's really annoying if you want a loaf of bread, but the baker doesn't particularly want a bike, for instance, if you assemble bikes. Of course consumption keeps the ecomomy going. If there was no wants or needs, there would be no reason to be productive. Most people don't get rich from the stock market or by banking money. Those are ways to keep your money from losing value due to inflation, and make modest gains, on average. People get rich from finding a need, and developing a business that produces that product and sells it. Look at Ford and Carnegie as examples. These people make the world go around. Their inventions and ideas have brought us from hunter and gatherer tribal societies to modern societies where people specialize in their work and trade freely to obtain their needs and wants without having to directly work to obtain them. It takes a great deal of talent in many different fields to make a business come together, and the leaders who make it happen should not be punished by govt. for being successful, they should be rewarded. I simply submit that we treat them fairly since we owe our jobs and way of life in general to these people. Yes, everyone works hard for their money, but that doesn't mean everyone's work is equally valuable. If I decide to dig a hole in my backyard, it requires a fair amount of work, but since no one is interested in a hole in my back yard, that wouldn't be very productive work. You can't just say everyone's work is equal and use govt as a tool to even out the wealth. Doing so removes the incentive to be productive and place your energies in other areas that you will be rewarded for.

Re:Productivity versus Income

[Anonymous Coward]

there is a definite correlation between productivity and income. Your income is what others estimate your work is worth in terms of their work. This is the best measure available of productivity, since to give value to someone elses work in this manner, you must give of your own work.

OK, so by your definition the most productive people in California are Film stars, Sports stars, and lawyers.

I guess Dale McBride & Chris Sontag have higher salaries than you or e.g. Linus Torvalds, which by your definition means their work is more productive. Scientists at universities like Berkeley, Stanford, UCLA have lower salaries, as do most of the engineers at Intel, Apple, Sun or AMD. Bah! What have transistors and microprocessors ever done for our economy? We need more lawyers and sports starts!

Productivity has absolutely nothing to do with salary. It is a well-defined economic term used to describe the amount of work or material produced per worker, site or unit of time. You can compare development of productivity between different fields, but not the productivity itself.

Actually, if anything there is an anti-correlation: Dell and several other companies are moving support to India because their productivity per dollar is higher there - due to the *lower* salaries.

105% vote. Like the 2000 President elections :)

[Woxbert]

Davis at 49.9%, Flynt at 30%, Arnie at 29.9%.

What about the other -9.8%? ;) It's like Florida in 2000 all over again.

Sorry, I know that was mean.

The point was interesting - to my mind, although I don't agree with their policies, Flynt shares Arnie's strength in that I believe they probably can't be bought too easily.

I never thought I'd come to this, but in the US system right now the prime factor is whether they're corrupt or not: not what they actually believe. Sad really. Defending the campaign funding which makes all this open corruption possible is truely unsustainable now.

Re:105% vote. Like the 2000 President elections :)

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, the first 49.9% for Davis was in the "are we going to kick the bum out" vote, and the other votes were in the "now that we kicked the bum out, which bum do we want now vote." Even in Florida, they aren't allowed to mix votes like you did. :)

Re:105% vote. Like the 2000 President elections :)

[Sri Lumpa]

"I never thought I'd come to this, but in the US system right now the prime factor is whether they're corrupt or not"

I don't know, to me it seems more that the prime factor is not whether they are corrupt but which way are they coorupted.

Luckily there are exceptions.

DOESN'T ANYONE HAVE ANY FREAKIN' QUESTIONS!!!??

[garyrich]

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?

Re:DOESN'T ANYONE HAVE ANY FREAKIN' QUESTIONS!!!??

[garyrich]

Actually the fine (cough) folks at NBC answered my question for me:

'Georgy Russell, Santa Clara, sells "Georgy For Governor" thong underwear'

God Bless America! And I missed an entire class of entrants, the "you know, my name is similar enough to x that dumbass Californians will probably get confused and vote for me":

Dan Feinstein, San Francisco, no relation to the Sen. Dianne Feinstein
Edward Thomas Kennedy, Trinity, not of that Kennedy family
Michael Jackson, Los Angeles, electrical engineer and not a pop music star
Richard J. Simmons, Los Angeles, not the weight-loss guru

$13 billion for power purchases

[Anonymous Coward]

According to the Sacramento Bee about $13 billion were used to purchase additional power to keep the state afloat. Revenue bonds were issued (against the opposition of state Republican legislators) to recoop the expenditure.

Campaign question

[phlegmofdiscontent]

What are you going to do to reduce the steady increase in the scope and intrusiveness of the government in your state? I'm not a resident of California (nor plan to be), but it often influences many other states.

Legitimising Coups

[Anonymous Coward]

I gather Mr. Davis was re-elected perfectly legitimately a year or so ago for a specific term. He is a Democrat - they have a history of raising taxes. He will be up for re-election in a year or twos time when the voters can pass judgement on his performance.

Why are you feel it is legitimate to undermine this democratic process by participating in the election? Do you belive this trend of minorities attempting to remove elected officials from office we can expect to continue in US politics for the forseable future?

"a beautful Brazilian woman"

[Dareth]

... proof required... post pictures and bio...

After all, not all of us "Geeks & Nerds" want a
Russian bride... hell they are so attached these
day's they try to marry you while you are in space!
I'm sure she can find a nice husband to get her
permanent status...*wink*

Re:"a beautful Brazilian woman"

[krysith]

Alas, she was dating my friend the sales-clone. She wanted to marry him, he ran like hell. I think that may have helped her decision to go back to Brazil. Oh, well, one less hottie in North America... :(

While its a good thing for us male nerds, I think its a real shame that the easiest way for girls from other countries to get here is to have to marry a US citizen. I say let them come here, then marry us on their own terms. It's too bad I hold marriage rather sacred or I would definitely take advantage of the situation...
Ya lyooblyoo krasivih Russiskih jenshin!

Ideology Good

[nonameisgood]

(Disclaimer: I'm a Texan, so my opinion counts -1 here, but y'all get to hear, er, read it anyway)

I would vote for your ideology in an instant. I would vote for your youthful perspective. I would vote for your lack of experience. I would vote for you simply because you don't pretend to know all of the answers. (That's 4 votes, if you're counting). And you'd get my vote for "best implementation of a candidate's slogan", too.

Especially in this circumstance, it seems that the power vacuum that will be created needs all of these traits to allow the evolutionary changes that will FIX the state. (We all think California is screwed up, but you seem OK.)

Pot, yes; immigration, OK; right wing politics, Reefer Madness
Stick to your ideals.

When you run for President, I'll be there, but you have to wait until 35!

Re:Ideology Good

[HarveyBirdman]

I don't have an ideology. I look at every issue- every instances of every issue- as an individual case.

My most common answer to common water-cooler policial questions is "It depends". People generally don't like to talk politics with me because I don't have pat answers into which I try to bludgen every real world case.

You're waaaaaay offf

[Anonymous Coward]

The total cost was estimated at about $70 billion. Those included contracts at unreasonably high rates. A lot of this stuff was spread out over several years. California got stuck with all these contracts. $4 billion? You can probably find a 1 week period where California blew more than that because of energy price gouging.

What's with these +5 comments with wrong info?

[Anonymous Coward]

The price at which utilities bought energy was de-regulated, the prices at which consumers paid for energy wasn't. The utility companies were being price gouged and running out of money. The California government had to bail all these companies out, and eat a lot of the costs of price gouging. ALl because of Bush's fucking Texas buddies like Ken Lay. And now you're recalling someone who won an election. The Bush admin WILL PAY for this. Yes, that is a threat.

Re:What's with these +5 comments with wrong info?

[Jhon]

I think you missed something somewhere.

Check out this article

Bush had nothing to do with the crisis in CA. Spending did. The "bail out" comes in the form of "bonds" which will be paid for by tax payers initially, but RE-PAYED by higher rates by the consumer and in the form of loans will be repaid. See here, and here. The $40 billion "shortfall" doesn't include the energy bail out.

Go ahead. Blame Bush -- who came in to office only WEEKS after the energy crisis was well under way. Blame Bush -- who had nothing to do with Davis's ignoring repeated warnings by many sources with completely unrelated agendas.

This redicules finger pointing between the "left" and the "right" really needs to stop. "It's [insert hated person from the 'other' party here] fault." Geez. Give it a rest.

"Free for all"?

[Anonymous Coward]

What crack are you smoking? Or do you mean "free for all" as in everyone for themselves?

Geek...more like leftist

[gordgekko]

So Slashdot is in love with someone as liberal as Gray Davis? Hey, as long as she's cute and reads Slashdot right?

Question

[ImpalerLord]

So after the election you want to go get a drink or something?

Ummm

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would a California governor run for a House seat?

You're Better Looking Than Arianna Huffington

[Master of Transhuman]

And you can run Linux.

So I'd vote for you - if I wasn't an anarchist, that is.

"Don't vote - it only encourages them."

not complicated

[GunFodder]

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.

Re:not complicated

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the biggest load of left wing diarrhea FUD I have seen in a while. Whats even sadder is that it looks like you are serious.

Re:not complicated

[Anonymous Coward]

Man, shut up.

Rich people need the services of the police to protect their numerous belongings.

Yeah, because poor people never need the police.

They need the fire department to keep their large homes and office buildings from burning down.

Uh huh- poor people never have fires either.

They need a military to protect their foreign investments.

Man, we should get a military that protects the poor people too. Oh wait!

They need special legislation to protect their business interests.

Anyone can start a business.

They need bailouts after stealing from their own companies.

And you need to quit reading Marx and start trying to meet girls. Hopefully they could tone down your wierdness, you freak.

Re:not complicated

[Anonymous Coward]

They need EPA's superfund to clean up after their toxic waste.

They need huge government subsidies to keep their huge hog farms running.

The government pays unemployment benefits to jobs lost from gross corporate mismanagement

The government pays dearly when defrauded out of billions of dollars.

In fact, it sounds like the worst thing our economy has suffered through is the rich.

Easy Peasy Japanesey.

Re:not complicated

[Bush Pig]

I'd say you _totally_ miss the point. I have very little patience with libertarians and economic liberals, as they either don't understand anything, or their pronouncements are totally self-serving.

Re:not complicated

[danheskett]

Nope.

The biggest line items in virtually every single budget in the whole country are welfare programs for the poor.

Medicare, Social Security, and the Dept. of Agriculture (foodstamps) are the biggest line items in the federal budget (minus interest payments, which are the largest).

In the state government, Medicaid is usually the largest item. In Maine (my state) it is the largest by a wide, wide margin.

In my county, the largest line item by far is the county hospital, which writes off approximately 40% of its operating budget in charity care.

In my town, the largest line item is Dept. of Human Services followed closely by Child Welfare.

Your claim is just not passable, and really, doesn't pass the laugh test. Protecting one office building (which, by the way, gives all kinds of value to individuals who may in fact be poor - like jobs for instance) from looting and fire does not offset the millions of individuals who enjoy the same protections plus social welfare.

Re:not complicated

[untaken_name]

nice troll. I'd rather believe that than to think that someone actually believes that the rich are the only ones who benefit from police, fire depts, blah blah etc. See, the problem isn't that poor people are only getting a little bit of money to survive. It's that the money those people are getting is less than half of what is paid into the system they're getting it from. This system also encourages dependancy and has so many cracks in it the people who *don't* fall through them are the exception. Police departments in poor neighborhoods cost taxpayers more than those in rich neighborhoods. Same with hospitals. If you really believe that the rich benefit most from *government spending* as differentiated from legislative preference (which the rich do get and which is despicable), you are wrong.
Also, if you make 100,000 dollars a year, you will be paying more than 40% to the goverment, currently. Sure, it's still more than the guy who makes 40 grand is getting, but so what? What incentive is there to get rich if your bills outpace your earnings? Why should you work 6 months out of the year for the government? They're not doing a good enough JOB to be worth 6 months of my valuable time.

Re:not complicated

[Anonymous Coward]

The first item doesn't sound fair but it is a basic tenet of capitalism - what the market will bear.

It's not a "market" when they send people to your door with guns to collect money.

Re:not complicated

[stuntpope]

US Department of Defense FY2003 spending: $358.2 billion

US Department of Agriculture FY2003 spending (all, not just food stamps or assistance programs): $72.8 billion

US Dept of Agriculture has a FY2004 budget of $42.9 billion for domestic food assistance programs

So, you were saying that the military is a welfare program for the poor?

Renewable power

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see what is so odd about investing large amounts of money in renewable resources. If the 4th largest economy in the world can plan to spend 6 billion on renewable resources when it isn't short off energy yet, why can't the 5th largest plan for using renewables? Besides, unlike the UK plan to build large off-shore wind farms, solar panels in California can be put on roofs.

Re:Renewable power

[cybermace5]

Solar panels on roofs, money on trees...it's all the same to me!

1 million+ signatures

[endoboy]

not to suggest that Davis should or shouldn't be recalled, but given the budget that the recall campaign had, it shouldn't be too hard to get a million signatures nominating a gerbil for governor

Not doing anything?

[CleverNickName]

Translation: I dont like what's going on but I won't do anything about it.

Uh, no.

What I will do is vote against Davis in the next general election, just like I voted against him in the last general election.

Re:Not doing anything?

[MagikSlinger]

But why didn't Wil Wheaton run? I mean, come on, Gary Coleman and Galagher are running!

Wil Wheaton would reverse the polarity of the tacheyon stream and run it through a matter phase inverter, and voila! No more budget deficit and power enough to light California for 20 years.

Re:Not doing anything?

[xanadu-xtroot.com]

That's almost funny.

:-)

Who cares

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.photovault.com/Link/People/R/Incarcerat ionPrisons/show.asp?tg=PRIVolume01/PRIV01P09_01

First question:

What are your views, Ms. Georgy, on execution?

Second:

Have you viewed the *last* words from the inmates at Texas State Penn.? It's available online.

Enjoy.

-m

Re:Do you support the state using open source/linu

[bhtooefr]

Her server runs Apache on Linux with OK uptime (as opposed to Windows), but she herself uses Windows (looks like stock Dell XP - the PC is a Dell, and the Windows logo in IE looks like an XP logo).

Re:Do you support the state using open source/linu

[scupper]

One photo shows Georgy working at the computer, with what appears to be a O'Reilly book on "Running Linux or Learning Redhat Linux.

It's on the window sill to the left of her with some kind of life form perching on it. You know, the state is looking to reform their whole IS operation, after the Oracle debacle and the Florez investigations. They discussed doing less contracting, more internal hiring and training like Illinois???. She would make a great splash in Suckramento as a possible State CIO???

Re:Do you support the state using open source/linu

[bhtooefr]

Didn't see that. That is the picture I saw, BTW. Now I saw the keyboard. Looks worse than a MS natural.

illegals getting health care and pot

[Anonymous Coward]

Californians overwhelming approved the recent medical marijuana ballot initiative. Usually these initiatives are close but this one was a landslide. It isn't just young people that support legal marijuana use. Remember the 60s? The pot smokers in the 60s were 20-30 years old at the time. Now that makes them 60-70. So we've got a huge portion of 18-70 year olds who have tried it, and a lot of people who dont want potsmokers or growers in prison.

I'd think...

[Erbo]

...that, rather than give away the cheesecake shots, she'd offer 'em only to people who donate large amounts of money to her campaign. You know, an incentive to maximize contributions.

(Of course, I'd hope she watermarks 'em so she knows who leaked the pictures when they get spammed across the Internet...)

CA and Free Software

[BrianWCarver]

Here at Slashdot many are avid supporters of Free and Open Source Software. Will you promise right now that, if elected, you will make it mandatory that every state software purchase occur only after Free and Open Source software alternatives have been adequately considered?

Second, will you promise to hire a team of at least 50 Debian developers, declaring Debian GNU/Linux the Official Operating System of California?

Finally, if Bush is re-elected, will you look into secession for California?

Public Image

[KingKaneOfNod]

Aren't you concerned that the publicity photos available on your website make you out to be too young and attractive to have sufficient credibility? If you look at successful politicians, most are neither young nor physically attractive, as these qualities tend to make people believe that a candidate is neither sufficiently experienced, or simply is not trustworthy.

The Lt. Governor could've been governor

[mrbrown1602]

Cruz Bustamante (sp?) had the opportunity to become Governor as the Lt. Governor. From what I understand, under the California constitution, he had the option to take Davis' place if he was recalled. But, seeing as how most political analysts called it suicide and how the democrats were behind Gray Davis at the time, he decided to allow the election (part 2 of the recall ballot) take place. I'm no lawyer, though.

Fortune cookies

[schnitzi]

Dear Georgy:

What do the fortune-cookie fortunes taped to your monitor say?

http://www.georgyforgov.com/pics.htm

Also, I notice the problem of over-breeding of stuffed animals has spread to your office. What would you do to control their proliferation?

Whoa!

[77Punker]

Attractive female...Linux...how the hell did this happen????

What do you look for?

[Ken Broadfoot]

What are you looking for in a "First Husband" for California?

--ken

Christian socialism

[dowobeha]

Thanks for the support! :)

There are a few of us down here who believe in social justice, minimum & maximum wage, universal health care, and balanced budgets.

Our illustrious president just does a good job of hiding us in the closet any time company comes to visit...

Gosh, thanks for the illumination

[HarveyBirdman]

There's no magic button. Thanks for that news flash.

I know Arnold can do it.

[pr0ntab]

But so can a college educated techie. I was trying to spin the tables around on the question, not ridicule Arnold.

I'd be happy if he won too! I might even consider moving there after that.

What's her slashdot username?

[dfries]

She reads Slashdot? What's her username? You can't be serious about slashdot without having one.

Comment regarding her crime statement

[Chatmag]

" We can reform the California criminal justice system, second only to Texas in its executions and prison populations."

I thought Florida is second to Texas in executions. Maybe that's why my lights keep dimming.

Fall back plan

[Anonymous Coward]

Given that your may be considered an outsider and your chances of being elected are not that great. We are more likely to find out if you are serious in really helping California recover or if you are just a publicity hound looking for attention to further your own agenda, like so many others in this election, by actually not being elected. As this would show whether you are serious by your actions following the elections. Having a crystal ball would be nice (anyone having one please let us know). It would be helpful to know how you would respond to a failure to be elected before the election in judging how serious/determined you are and your ability to handle defeat which you will see many times win or lose. Assuming that you don't win;
a) What do you plan to do following the election?
b) How do you intend to further your cause?
c) How do you intent to help California if your not elected?
d) Are you planning to stay in politics and to run in another election?

If Arnold wins...

[ssstraub]

...do you think they'll have a Total Recall?

Buh-dum-dum-TSHHH!

Software Patents?

[its_the_muppet_show]

What do you think of software patents? (Think SCO and Microsoft lawsuit with Eolas) Are they good for the economy, or are they just bad? Please give us your opinion about this subject.

Tsk, Berkeley and no BSD user ?

[marcovje]

:-)

What do you offer typical Slashdotters...

[Anonymous Coward]

...to compete with Mary?

No, let me rephrase that....

[LittleGuy]

I withdraw my question for:

Perhaps instead of "boxers or briefs," our next presidential candidate will have to answer "POP3 or IMAP?""

Re:New study shows that Marajuana use causes denia

[jandrese]

Darn that scientific method! It makes all of this Marijuana research so damned difficult. Why can't you people just believe what me and my friends say already?!? Will you stop asking for evidence and sound statistical analysis already? It's becoming very bothersome. Geez.

Would you be willing to drop out?

[frankie]

IMO, 200ish names on a single ballot item is flat out insane. It makes the Infamous Butterfly look like an elegant masterpiece. If a decent number of the other "minor" candidates opted to drop out and endorse a larger-name candidate with similar views, would you consider doing the same?

Why (/not), and what other candidate(s) would you endorse?

why plurality voting sucks

[djtack]

Votes for "Do not recall Davis, we want to keep him": 49.9%
Votes for Larry Flynt: 30%
Flynt wins!

I agree that it seems likely that the winner will have a very small pecentage of the votes. I actually wouldn't be surprised if someone wins with <20% of the vote.

Perhaps the best thing that will come out of this recall election is that the nation will have a dramatic example of why plurality voting sucks so badly. Perhaps there will be more interest in implementing instant runoff voting.

question for editors

[Purificator]

i humbly ask that the editors check the mail headers of the reply and post the mailer (along with the answers to the questions). my "geek vote" isn't totally convinced by some thinkgeek shirts and a linux install disk.

income tax is a communist tactic

[Anonymous Coward]

My point is that it's only as regressive as you want it to be. You are in control. Don't want to pay taxes? Easy, buy nothing but the essentials of life.

Now, the income tax, that's regressive. The more you make, the disproportionately more you pay. A totally arbitrary figure that you have no control over (a flat tax) is bad enough, but a graduated tax goes further...it punishes those who are the most productive! I thought the American dream was "work hard, get ahead"...now it's more like "work hard, we'll squash you harder".

A steeply graduated income tax is a plank of the communist manifesto. Sales tax puts the power and the freedom in the hand of the consumer. So which are you supporting, again?

-CT

what are the tax rates? Re:THANK YOU CHEEZEDAWG

[trulymadlydeeply]

Seeing as you can't spell "latter", I doubt you could google the California tax rates and find out they don't burden the richest.

California has plenty of rich people. They aren't fleeing the state. If they were, who would be paying for all the million dollar houses? The poor unemployed middle-class people are the ones who are leaving and can't pay the rents.

Re:what are the tax rates? Re:THANK YOU CHEEZEDAWG

[Anonymous Coward]

It is important to remember that an income tax is not a tax on the wealthy, it is a tax on those who earn a lot this year. You could say that it is a tax on the hard-working although that would be a gross oversimplification. If you want to tax the rich, you must use a property tax where you include investment holdings as property.

Remember that the majority of liberal politicians are millionaires. The point of an income tax isn't to punish the wealthy, it's to prevent you from joining their country club.

it's not too late ...."a beautful Brazilian woman"

[trulymadlydeeply]

its not too late to come back and marry one of us ugly male citizens. hey if citizenship isn't enough to get a job it should at least get us each beautiful brazilian geek architects.

ITIN

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever heard of the Individual Tax Identification Number? The IRS encourages illegals to use it to report their earnings. The IRS does not share their info with immigration and border enforcement agencies. Using an ITIN rather than an SSN is a huge red flag for non-citizenship. But the IRS doesn't care, as long as the money keeps coming in.

-CT

Subsidies and Handouts

[Anonymous Coward]

Just like countries 2-4, and 6 on down:

No economy 'fixing' is needed, just get unsecured cash from the good 'ole U.S. of A.

Never repay it.

Ask for more.

Get more cash.

Repeat.

Legalize It?

[Djanossy II]

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?

Why are you pursuing politics instead of computing

[3mike]

Says you studied at UC. Did you graduate from UC Berkeley? In which areas of computer science are you most knowledgeable, and how do those areas relate to politics?

personally, I feel that you are an idiot

[alizard]

I personally feel that those people should have no claim to any sort of compensation for injury, death, etc. They are not legal workers, they are not legal immigrants, thus they have no rights here whatsoever (as far as I am concerned).

So you want cheap labor that employers have no legal responsibility towards.

I hope you get replaced by an immigrant who gets paid more than you do now because her competence is superior.

best outcome?

[alizard]

Governor Gary Coleman.

Though from the point of view of the Religious Right and the rest of the Bushmen, Arnie might be the best way to get that lesson across.

They started hammering him right after he announced. Those pictures of Arnold with a joint and the rumors about the gay porn did not come from the Democrats... if they had, Fox News wouldn't have run them.

FLAMEBAIT Re:questions about the campaign.

[trulymadlydeeply]

This is an issue that's not up to the governor of California.

The citizens of California voted against extending benefits to illegal immigrants, but this was nullified by the federal supreme court. Answering this question can only be bad--either you offend some taxpaying citizens, or offend some former illegal immigrants and their families.

By the way, they do pay taxes. You can hide from the INS but not the IRS.

Blogs in gov't

[phorm]

I find it interesting that as a candidate you run a blog. If you were elected, would you continue to run your blog, and therefore allow us insite into life of a political entity, or would you restrict it to non-political matters?

There seems to be a fine line in politics between: what shouldn't be said (confidential), what isn't said (cover-ups), and what is heard (3rd-rate, confused and often not 100% true). How about something to the extent of a blog for politicians, where you run over basic issues covered in a day. Hell, not only would it help the people know what's going on, but it would help you keep track of it too.

Is there any reason the public should not have more insite into what happens in politics? For many major situations we simply don't know what's going on until it happened (and cost us large amounts of cash or a blow to our rights/privacy/etc). Is it so hard to keep a somewhat understandable (perhaps not even offical) journal of a days happenings, just so the public can be informed? We don't need daily expense totals, just the bigger picture as it's happening. Hell, I'd be happy to see my tax money go to supporting a keyboardist/webmaster/whatever just to keep such a thing up-to-date, in case of hand-cramps or politicians that can't type very well.

The government represents the people, and while the internet is helping us lend a voice to our opinion, it could also be used as a tool to let the people hear the voice of politicians (exempting stupid internet/email campaigning ideas). How about it, any reason politicans shouldn't become more "plugged" and lift the veil of secrecy currently hanging over it?

end illegal immigration?

[alizard]

Non-issue. The politicians don't want this to go away.

All it would take to stop illegal immigration within weeks would be a "turn in employers" campaign (say, anyone with more than a dozen illegals or with more than XX% of the workforce illegals) with:

• a green cards and $1K in cash for everybody working for an employer turned in as a result of the program
• A toll-free number advertised heavily in ethnic media

The reason for making everybody working at an illegal alien shop eligible for the reward is, of course, so that nobody at a place full of illegal aliens will have the slightest reluctance based on harming his fellow aliens to turn in his boss and everybody would be happy to testify.

This would probably be one hell of a lot cheaper than what's spent on INS enforcement now.

Slashdot Audience

[arunarunarun]

How do you percieve the Slashdot audience, with respect to your electoral campaign?

Let me be clearer, given the size of the Slashdot audience, the number that might be California residents, and the indirect influence they hold in terms of word-of-mouth, what weight do you think impressing us carries for this election?

Hehe, if you answer this, sorry for putting you on the spot. :)

gender help or hindrance?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you believe that having breasts will help promote votes within your 'geek' demographic, or hinder your popularity within that group?

(this is a serious question)

An important issue to most /.'ers....

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey Georgy, are you a lesbian? And, if so, could me, you, and your girlfriend have a 3 way?

If you're not a lesbian, could me, you, and a close girl friend of yours have a 3 way?

Thanks for your time,
Moby Dick.

p.s. Do you like anal? What about your girl friends?

Wave Generated power?

[Anonymous Coward]

With California having the second biggist coastline in the USA (Alaska being first),

Will she develop low tide / high tide power facilities?

I've read tidial power generation systems are catching on in europe, and they would be a big help for CA.

CA has so much Sun and Coast line, I think they could provide energy for themselves and other states too...

Can she find ways for CA to save money?

[Anonymous Coward]

The City of Calgary is saving millions of dollars by using flat lense lighting.

Flat lense and low pressure sodium street lights can help reduce light pollution, save money, and reduce air pollution from generating electrical power.

More info at:
http://www.calgary.ca
EnviroSmart Street Light Retrofit

How can we complain about the California election?

[1iar_parad0x]

I know this is slightly off-topic. In a system that gives us leaders like Strom Thurmond, William Byrd, Ted Kennedy, and Ernest Hollings, how is the California re-election bad? Have you ever watched C-SPAN? Those guys aren't even cohorent. Heck, I'd say there sometimes comatose. It's almost as fun as Slashdot!