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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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)

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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

Economy

[BgJonson79]

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

* ABC News last night

Obvious question

[lovebyte]

Why?

RIAA vs. America

[southpolesammy]

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

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?

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?

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?

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?

the most important question

[Mothra the III]

Boxers or briefs?

Re:the most important question

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:the most important question

[markhb]

vi or emacs?

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

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?

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.

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?

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

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?

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?

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

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.

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?

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?

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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

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: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: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.

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".

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?

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?

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?

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.

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.

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?

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>

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?