Slashdot Mirror
Georgy Tells Why She Should Be California Gov
1) Do you think the recall is fair? - by mjmalone
Do you think the california recall election is fair? I understand that a lot of Californians are unhappy with Gray Davis' performance, but he WAS elected by the people, if people dislike him then they can vote him out of office when his term is up. It seems unfair that Davis needs a majority of votes to remain in office, but a replacement candidate could be selected by a plurality. It is possible, and quite likely, that Davis will be voted out with 60% or fewer votes. That would mean 40% or more voters essentially voted for Davis, but he would not be the winner, one of the 400+ other candidates on the ballot would and in all liklihood that candidate will have received far fewer than 40% of the votes.
This whole situation seems like a gross abuse of a recall system that relies on honesty and virtuous politicians. Unfortunately California is no such utopia. By running in the election you have shown your support for it, how do you justify this support given the evident problems?
Georgy:
The aspect of this recall that I find most disgustingly unfair is the influence of money in politics. Californians should find it frightening that a wealthy Republican can buy himself another election. And if that isn't enough, we end up with an election where a series of other millionaires are taken seriously when they tell us they will govern for "the people." Perhaps worse than individuals being legitimized as candidates solely because of wealth, is a political system so heavily influenced by campaign contributions that lawmakers can no longer use their own judgment. This is at all levels of the Government, with the White House/Enron shenanigans being the perfect example. We also see it with Davis and Bustamante - who are owned by Prison Guard's Union and Indian Gaming. And if we look at less publicized issues, for example the high cost of Worker's Compensation, lobbying efforts and campaign contributions are to blame for the lack of response on behalf of the Legislature.
Requiring 50% to keep Davis seems unfair, when a replacement candidate could be elected with only 15%. However, the replacement candidate election could be fairer with instant runoff voting. Unfortunately people don't understand, and therefore don't trust, the instant runoff voting algorithm. If IRV were used, voters could be sure that the candidate *most* people wanted to win would win. It's a system where Ralph Nader could have maximized his vote without being a spoiler candidate in the 2000 election. (I encourage people to find out more about IRV at www.fairvote.org)
As for my candidacy, I am running in this election because Californians deserve a candidate who is willing to speak candidly to them about issues, such as the budget, the economy, and the death penalty, that other politicians only dance around. We need someone to show courage and take risks to promote change. This recall provides a unique opportunity for an "honest and virtuous" candidate to enter the race, and I challenge people to lend their support and make the first step in taking back the political process.
2) questions about the campaign - by garcia
I would like to know if you fear that two of your more controversial issues (legalization of marijuana and gay marriages) will be detrimental to your campaign? While I believe that as more and more "young" people run for and are elected to office, these items might come to pass, don't you think that it is a little early to be attempting to make these strides?
Georgy:
The controversial issues define this campaign. Realize that these issues are in large part controversial because they're avoided like the plague by mainstream politicians. Lacking the courage to convince people of their true beliefs, poll-abiding politicians choose the easy road. There is anecdotal evidence many politicians believe in gay marriage and ending death penalty, but are too cowardly to fight for those views. Bill Clinton came out after his presidency and so much as said he thought marijuana shouldn't be illegal! Good thing for us he found his spine a year after leaving office.
I don't see these as wacky issues. I've laid out my arguments for why death penalty is bad policy (it's costly, unfairly applied, and imperfect). I've explained why gay marriage is superior to civil union (marriage promotes fidelity and family values, and it removes unfair tax advantages for people willing to file a couple forms ). As for legalized marijuana, why is marijuana criminal when alcohol and cigarettes profit the government? I believe that when people are presented with intelligent and logical arguments, they will turn around. The problem is few politicians take the time to have intelligent discussions on these issues. Education on "controversial" issues is necessary to convince the electorate to make up or change its mind. I truly believe all of these issues will be passed someday. Politicians are wasting our time and money not passing them now.
3) Content vs. Tech - by stylee
California is considered the capitol of the content industry (RIAA, MPAA) and the technology industry (Silicon Valley). These two industries are at odds with each other over intellectual propery rights issues. They are probably also a large chunk of California's huge economy. Do you think you can balance the needs/wants of both lobbying groups in a manner that will be beneficial to both industries? If so how? I realize that this is mostly a federal matter as far as the law and politics go but there are many that believe that California kind of sets the standard for the rest of the nation to follow(at least economically and politically) so I am intersted in your ideas on this matter.
Georgy:
This is a federal issue; however I think that the RIAA in its aggressive pursuit of young mp3 down loaders demonstrates its lack of creativity. Can't they find a new way to make a buck? Besides which, concert prices are typically $40 or more! I haven't seen the numbers on this, but digitized music and video have certainly fueled sales of technology used in association with them. Additionally, kids and adults understand technology better as a result of digital music boom.
The RIAA, with the support of the government, should have approached the situation proactively long ago, and embraced digital music. They should still do this. If they can provide a reasonably priced, easily accessible digital music alternative, I think people will go for it. Right now however, it's cumbersome for the under 18 crowd especially, to buy stuff online, and they haven't worked out all the kinks surrounding the "rules" (e.g. burnable tracks, how long you can keep them, etc) of proprietary downloads.
I believe the role of the government should be to encourage technology companies and the RIAA to work together on the issue, as well as taking a look at it in terms of intellectual property rights of the artists. To me it seems that the RIAA is mostly concerned with their $$$ and not the rights (or $$$) of the musicians. Again, politics is hit with same problem - special/self interest ruling the legislature. And, with the looks of this ballot, anyone who wants to prevent prosecution of down loaders might want to think twice about voting for Arnie.
4) Hope to win or shake things up? - by Dark Paladin
With the names of such heavyweights as Arnold and lightweights like Gary Coleman (no pun intended - well, all right, it was), do you honestly hope to win, or are you making a Ralph Nader like point in forcing certain issues and ideas into the public's eye?
Georgy:
I hope to both win AND shake things up. Obviously the odds are long (Vegas has them at 100 to 1 - bodog.com/sports-betting ), but they are not out of reach. We've only reached a small percentage of voters and already received an impressive amount of support. Howard Dean was considered a long shot just a few months ago, now he's a front runner. To think a Georgy for Governor victory is impossible is to succumb to the jaded view that money is the only victor, and in effect solidify its reality.
5) Technology - by chrisgeleven
Why does your blog and web site, from what I can tell, not mention any uses of technology that you would like to see? Can you describe any protential plans to use technology to reduce costs or provide more benefits for the same price?
Georgy:
Check back soon. Technology is key to improving the efficiency of government, and though the government has come a long way (you can file electronically for some things on the Secretary of State's website) there is still more that can be done. As for problem solving, I like to speak in specifics rather than generalities, so it takes a while.
I am currently looking into the role of visas in technology companies and its effects on California's labor market, and investigating how we can encourage more wide spread use of open source software (both in education and businesses). I'm also trying to get some volunteers to develop apps that will aid in the voting process (check the website for updates or email if you're interested in helping).
6) the most important question - by Mothra the III
Boxers or briefs?
Georgy:
Boxer-briefs! But seriously, boxers, and Georgy for Gov boxers at that!
6A) Re:the most important question - by markhb
vi or emacs?
Georgy:
I'm so glad you asked!! Both. vi for quick editing, emacs (NOT xemacs) for coding projects. :q!:q!:q!
7) Do you think this election is Real? - by Voltas
With all the "Star Power" and the number of candidates that obviously are looking for media attention (I.E. Gary Colemen ), do you really thing that the candidates or the office really going to be taken serious when its all said and done?
Won't this whole election fiasco cripple anyone who actually wins?
Georgy:
This election does seem like it was dreamt up by Hollywood reality TV executives, but it is a real election, and it will go down as one of the most, if not the most, historical elections. After October 7, the fun will be over, and I'm sure the media will be bored by the daily details of Sacramento bureaucracy. The only thing that will cripple anyone who wins is his/her inability to lead. A candidate like Gary Coleman, who said he didn't want to be Governor, won't win (I hope). The interesting thing about Coleman, though, is that he was actually a president on Buck Rogers! Perhaps this is a case of the line between reality and fantasy blurring. "Hieronymous Fox, an 11-year-old child genius from the 20th Century is kidnapped for ransom by the sinister Roderick Zale. The boy is the President of the planet Genesia and his bodyguard fears that he will be killed because they cannot meet the ransom demand. Buck, Wilma, and the bodyguard then make separate attempts to rescue the boy." Maybe things will pick back up for the media in 2006, when Arnold Drummond can take another shot at it, and Willis can run as Lt. Governor.
8) Did you pay SCO? - by sharkey
Did you pay for your Linux licenses?
8A) Re: Did you pay SCO? - by El_Ge_Ex
If not, would you support strategic military action against Utah?
Georgy:
Despite the fact that SCO has launched an attack on many Californians, I don't think California will be declaring war on Utah, let alone the cowards at SCO. I'm not sure if my company plans to pay SCO, but I certainly hope they won't. SCO seems like they're running scared, using a lawsuit to boost revenue (kind of like the RIAA). Asking for $700 per license is extremely high, and should send a warning single to people that they are doing this to boost revenue and not simply out of fairness. If you check SCO's insider trading, people are selling like crazy. I think the open source community needs to educate people about the SCO case, and keep SCO's scare tactics from bullying weary individuals or corporations into paying them.
9) Who's in your staff? - by zoneball
A good leader must surround him or herself with the best advisors and experts within their respective fields. Who will you be bringing in to your campaign and administration, and what are their qualifications?
Georgy:
My "staff" is all volunteers. Their experience varies from none to work with local and state campaigns. I also have a professional photographer helping me, and a few people working on the technical side of things - website and video editing.
As for my administration, I plan to bring in people who have first hand experience with the problems on which they'll be working, and I would like to see diversity, in terms of both professional background and demographics (ethnicity, age, sex, etc.).
10) Do you understand... - by niko9
Do you understand Dselect? That program scares the poop out me. But I figure if you can handle dselect, you can handle being governor.
Georgy:
I have not used dselect. Hopefully you can find another litmus test for me!
I don't know about you all, but I don't hear a geek. I hear a politician telling geeks what they want to hear.
That's not a slam, just an opinion. On the other hand, Georgy would sure be a lot easier on the eyes than Arnold or Bustamante.
However, it's a moot point. Running as the "geek" candidate was silly anyway, like running as the "paraplejics" candidate, or the "millionaires" candidate. In a general election, any candidate aiming for a minority is going to lose.
Campaign contributions have allways been a natural part of our democracy. Contributions makes it possoble for the weak canditade that are not that well know to increase their name recognition by advertising.
This is not about wealty republicans vs. some poor democrates. The right to recive contributions is for everyone, whatever policy they have. The sad thing is that such a promising candidate fall to such populistic methods, trying to win some easy votes. Actually this tactic reminds me of some of the elections in the fifthies when democrates fell down to a almost comunist standard when it came to pre-electin statements.
Proud patriot and republican voter.
It's still considered a drug, its prohibition "worked" and didn't cause a massive revolt like alcohol's did
Thats because drunks are irrational and prone to fits of extreme emotion, and potheads are mellow and apathetic.
Many (including myself) consider it a huge issue, not just the legal status of marijuana, but the sweeping powers given to the DEA and the whole concept of civil forfeiture. It's ruined a LOT of innocent lives over very trivial offenses.
The DEA can show up at your home, give your wife this choice "either you testify in court that your husband is a drug dealer, or we'll sieze your home and put your children with foster families". They have those powers regardless of any burden of evidence. Those powers have been abused countless times as law enforcement agencies started to see civil forfeiture as a means of funding.
Possession of any amount of marijuana (even hemp with no narcotic effects) in Nevada, for instance, results in a manditory 25 year jail term - FOR FIRST OFFENSES! There's something seriously wrong with that. Your life is over because some prick cop notices you're wearing a hemp necklace.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
you could look at the State of MN (where I currently reside)... They had an $8 billion deficit after good 'ol Jesse left (he was done when I got here).
The new governor is refusing (at this time) to raise taxes. Instead he is cutting funding all over the place. Higher education got the first hit (where I happen to work).
They want to limit benefits, end pay raises (in fact they want to give us two pay decreases), end new positions, drop funding for students, etc.
So instead of taxing everyone outright, they tax us in another way? What's the difference in the long run?
my opinion on marijuana is irrelevant
Don't smoke it then, don't deal it then, and don't have it in your system.
It's illegal and they are allowed to prosecute you for it.
It's only an issue for pot smokers.
If it's so easy to get those signatures, why is this the first time in 90 years that it's happened? Every governor of California in the past 30 years has faced a recall petition drive, but only now has one been successful. Wonder why that could be.
If it ain't broke, you need more software.
This calling people commie bullshit has to stop. It's the lamest, weakest, least creative attempt to marginalize liberal/progressive ideas ever. It's funny because the whole notion of a one-party system and with witch hunts, purges and calling people traitors, etc... is much more akin to what went wrong with marxism/leninism than single payer healthcare.
Relevant because:
To help remediate some of the financial woes of california, additional "sin" taxes could add up to huge sums of money for the state to funnel into education, law enforcement, business incentives etc.
Scientifically speaking Marijuana is no more, and likely less addictive than other LEGAL regulated substances. (i.e. tobacco, alcohol, caffiene). That said, it is unlikely that government regulated, legal marijuana would spawn an outbreak of drug addiction, which is the unexpressed fear of some who oppose legalization.
Now, on to the $$. If a pack of 20 marijuana cigarettes cost, say 20 dollars its likely they would sell like hotcakes. If the government were to regulate their production and sale, including hefty taxes, there is ample room for tremendous profit for the manufacturers, wholesalers, distributers etc. as well as HUGE tax revenue.
Additionally law enforcement would save tons of money becuase no more marijuana related crime (i.e. sale/possesion) would have to be dealt with.
So, lots of extra tax $$$, more law enforcement resources and a stoned and happy populace makes some sense.
If the government gives every candidate the same amount of money, and at the same time forbid the acceptance of contributions or use of personal money. Than every person - poor or rich - has the same means to get elected.
Campaign contributions are NOT a natural part of democracy. They are rather a threat for democracy, and should be avoided at all costs.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ that's why it worked this time. Yes. It is that easy to get the signatures. I did that job. You get paid a buck a signature and about 20% of people you ask sign without even asking what the petition is about.
You honestly think it's hard to find that many people in California, a state of 35+ million, who don't really have a clue, or are just bitter enough about Simon's defeat to take this shot at fscking their own state government? Get real.
Who cares? Is that the point? The law required almost 1,000,000 signatures, and they got twice as many. At last count, I heard they had 1.7 million. If they did get 1.75 million, out of "a state of 35+ million", that would be 5%. Yet we hear whining all the time about the 50,000 people that die a year from SUV accidents, or lung cancer, or food poisoning, etc. So if we're going to make big changes that require a LOT of money to companies that make vehicles, cigarettes, and butcher cows, that's only going to help 50,000 people a year (in a country of 270,000,000), why not make a few changes to help 35,000,000 people in a state of 35,000,000?
Besides, Gray Davis has an approval rating of 22% or so. That's the lowest rating OF ANY POLITICIAN IN THIS COUNTRY'S HISTORY.
If the early half of the 20th century should have taught us anything, it's that instability in goverment leads to chaos and populist leaders with dangerous agendas.
So you're still looking at the early half of the 20th century to base your political opinions? Maybe it's time to jump into this century.
I wasn't around at the time, but from what I read, Adolf Hitler's government certainly wasn't "instable"... until the United States kicked his ass.
Here's what I think pisses most Democrats off about the situation in California. It was a Democrat's paradise. You want to increase school funding? Go for it! You have the House, Senate, AND the Governor! It's been a testbed for liberalism for several years... AND IT ISN'T WORKING. I hope some other Democrat gets elected and he does the same thing Davis does. Wait, rephrase... I hope the new governor does exactly what all the democrats in the state want. Then, next year when the state is completely bankrupt, I hope all the Republicans and Libertarians in the country stand up and say "I told you so." That would be great. Go ahead... try to find something in California that didn't go the way of the Left. Try to prove me wrong.
"It's better to have a gun and not need it than need a gun and not have it." ~ Christian Slater, True Romance
Are you serious? You would rather they raise taxes and take more of your money just so they can give it back to you in the form of better benefits? You should realize that bureacracies always give you back less than what you put in, so you'd be better off keeping the money you would have paid in higher taxes. Or were you hoping that the state would raise everyone ELSE's taxes so that you could get a raise? The difference in the long run is that you might loose your job, but the rest of the residents of NM won't be titheing to the state to support you.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
Marijuana, my opinion on the subject is irrelevant, is not a priority in this country. It's still considered a drug, its prohibition "worked" and didn't cause a massive revolt like alcohol's did, and it's not terribly important (medical use is another thread totally).
Prohibition worked? hardly...just like the bootleggers of old, there are many people trafficking and using marijuana. And to say it's not an important subject could definately be debated, with the amount of research done on marijuana's effects and uses each year. Alcohol is not terribly important either. Arguably, alcohol poses more problems (health and socially) than marijuana. Alcohol IS addictive. Sure, consumption of alcohol and smoking marijuana both cause cancer. So simply either extract THC, or make butter, brownies, teas, etc. No shown danger of cancer there.
So just because marijuana is a drug, that means it should be illegal? Alcohol is a drug, as is nicotine (which is more addictive than heroine i might add)
Marijuana legalization IS a big topic these days. The government is also missing out on a lot of money here, and I'm surprised it hasn't been legalized for that reason alone.
Another thing, with the state of farming in America as it is, that would be an easily grown crop that could help rejuvenate that industry. It can be grown in anywhere in the U.S., although Northern states would have a shorter growing season.
Okay, I'm off my soapbox now....
BTW, I have not used marijuana for about 2 years now.
If people are that upset and insist that those signatures truly don't reflect the will of the people since the recall is (supposedly) so easy to initiate, then obviously they believe that people are VERY concerned. The solution is simple: Vote no on the recall. If the majority truly wants Davis in, they'll turn out in droves.
Californians should find it frightening that a wealthy Republican can buy himself another election.
As opposed to a wealthy Democrat who bought himself the last election?
"Teachers leave us kids alone
Would you have forgiven him if he hadn't signed those contracts and the blackouts had continued indefinitely? The fact is, deregulation allowed the energy companies to put a gun to California's collective head. By signing the contracts, Davis was able to at least make it so that energy prices were stable and predictable, not increasing exponentially every week with intentional rolling blackouts (arguably a form of domestic terrorism) driving the "point" home.
The fact is California was mugged, and Davis bought us our freedom back. Sure, it was and is expensive, and there might have been better solutions (if you know any, please let me know what he should have done instead). Otherwise, wouldn't it be more logical to save your rage for the Republicans who set up the mugging, rather than the people who had to deal with the results?
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
The aspect of this recall that I find most disgustingly unfair is the influence of money in politics. Californians should find it frightening that a wealthy Republican can buy himself another election.
This is just stupid.
1) Last time I checked, the recall was part of the California Constitution, making a recall of an elected official legal.
2) It takes nearly 1 million voters to agree with a recall effort. They have to agree with the assertion that the current administration is doing a terrible job, and take time out of their day to sign the petition to make the recall legal. In no way can you "buy" an election. This is why we have had many recall efforts come and go, and this one being the first one that was successfull.
3) If she thinks this recall effort is such a sham, then why is she a part of it?!
It's only unfair to her, because its her party that might be kicked out of office. Too damn bad.
This is the first interesting election we Californians have had in our life time. I actually feel like my 1 vote might make a difference. It's about time that the 2 major parties got a wake up call.
So you're still looking at the early half of the 20th century to base your political opinions? Maybe it's time to jump into this century.
Um, are you saying you don't look so far back as the last 100 years to form opinions? I would consider it fundamental to at least have basic knowledge of the last 500 years of political history...
No wonder we elect such shitty leaders.
I live in a giant bucket.
I believe that when people are presented with intelligent and logical arguments, they will turn around.
Someone's lived in Northern California too long.
Unfortunately, "intelligent and logical" arguments don't sell, or we'd never be in this mess in the first place.
Good luck, though. I'm completely behind you anyways.
-Hentai [in vita non pacem est]
Boxers or briefs?
vi or emacs?
Did you pay for your Linux licenses?
Do you understand Dselect?
So freakin what!
Enough of the geekoid softball questions.
How about fixing the California deficit?
Or fixing/ending political corruption?
or doing something about pollution/wildfires/global warming or cooling(whichever you prefer)
or some actual relevant political question. After all, this is going to decide the next leader of the 5th largest economy in the world.
She may well be a good candidate. But if a large segment of her core constituency can't think past "she's hot! I wonder what she's wearing under those pants?", then her campaign is doomed before it starts.
I'll blatantly copy your post whenever I have to give an example of a moron "what-I-believe-is-right" conservative.
BOO! TERRO
The correct answer is not "Legalize Pot because Smoking is Legal."
You don't have to smoke pot, you can bake up some brownies and they achieve the same effect and are very healthy! The correct answer is "brownies are legal, therefore pot brownies should be legal too."
Zoot!
is much more akin to what went wrong with marxism/leninism than single payer healthcare.
Its a slipery slope, FDR started this BS with the new deal in the 30's, widows and orphans assistance, which has balloned into a big-ass drain on my paycheck that I'll never get a penny of. LBJ continued with socialism lite with the great society, paying (and feeding and housing) people to not work. In 70 years we have gone from a pull yourselves up by the bootstraps mentality to "ho hum, if I screw up, the gov't will take care of me" . That is highly dangerous and leads to nothing but class warfare, which is beneficial if you are trying to start a workers revolt to set up your communist paradise, but deadly to a country that should reward greatness.
I really wish there was a way I could sign a contract that says "I will not use the socialist services provided by the gov't and I refuse to pay for them" and not go to the pen for tax evasion.
Communism had its chance, it proved itself a failure at Plymouth in the 1620's and we watched it crumble in the 80's, let it die, it has proven itself worthless to humanity time and time again.
09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0
she doesn't adequately explain how she can not believe in the legitimacy of a recall and still run in that recall race. i presume if she says that california deserves a good governor, then she, in some part, believes that the recall is legitimate enough to elect a legitimate governor.
i don't think gay marriages and legalizing marijuana should define the campaign, as she said. i think the controversial issues, the reasons for the recall itself, are the economy of california, the inability of the state to get anything done, and gray davis' inability to work with the legislature. those are the reasons why a recall is needed; THOSE SHOULD DEFINE ALL THE RECALL CANDIDATES' CAMPAIGNS. the recall is about saving california, not a litmus test for social issues.
and if her staff is all volunteers, heaven help her (if she believes in such) because the big names in political maneuvering will go to the people who are willing to solidly define themselves on issues, and it doesn't seem like she'll get much help. (unless she drafts me? ah but the odds are against me; net interaction between women and me is negative) even then, i'm just a neophyte.
vi AND emacs? the question was meant for her to choose, not to explain good points of both! well she's learning as a politician how to keep both sides of the aisle happy i guess...=P
On a side note, I can't imagine why people feel so threatened by gay marriage. Nobody is gonna make you get married to a man if you don't want. It's not like theres a certain number of marriage points and the gay people will use them all up.
I wasn't around at the time, but from what I read, Adolf Hitler's government certainly wasn't "instable"... until the United States kicked his ass.
A nit pick. The Allies kicked his ass. You know, all those Brits, Aussies, Russians and other people that also fought and died.
Plus, it was the Russians that took Berlin.
Look, you can say 'tax the rich'
I believe that people should be accountable for themselves, their own financial development, and their own futures. There will always be people that are wealthier than me, and there will always be people that are poorer than me
And as a side-note
"I am closer to a libertarian socialist than a libertarian capitalist"
You don't sound like a socialist. Besides libertarian socialist is an oxymoron.
I mostly agree with you on the rest. Except for gay marriage, I don't understand why we need to institutionalize marriage in the first place. And this I most emphatically agree wholeheartedly with 100%:
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
This wasn't an interview, this was poor flirting.
I'd be interested to know if Georgy picked the questions or if Roblimo did. If Georgy did, it shows evasiveness just like the other canidates (Arnold & gay marriage - "I don't want to get into that right now."), just with different issues.
If Roblimo did, it shows a lack of understanding of what makes a good interview.
What did this tell me about Georgy? Not enough to make an informed decision on whether or not to vote for her. (Not that I can, since I don't live in CA)
I hate to make a big deal about it, because no one will read this after it's bombed to -1, but this is one example of why geeks don't get what they want politically. Slashdot really missed a chance to educate people about this canidate, and that's really too bad.
If I was in California, I'd vote for her. Decent policies and better looking than the other candidates.
What's not to like?
A few figures brings this point home. For the duration of the war 8 out of every 10 german soldier fought on the eastern front. Out of 55 million dead in WWII ca 22 million were Soviet (about 1/4 of a million US).
So the old saying is wrong. If it wasn't for the americans we'd all be speaking russian. Not german.
Stefan Axelsson
Tax the rich, feed the poor = Socialist.
Socialist = bankruptcy
Next.
As I'm sure has already been pointed out to you:
Where you're right, and don't even know it, is when you say voter disgust with Davis is what paved the way to this recall tomfoolery. Given the choice between Bill "Tax Fraud" Simon and Gray "Prison Guard Union Bitch" Davis, most voters chose to give a de facto 'none of the above' vote and just stayed home last November. These incredibly low turnout figures influenced how many signatures were necessary to get the recall on the ballot, and in the end paved the way for what we see now.
Also as an aside: I think it's BRILLIANT the way the Republican party of CA. has found a way to attack Davis for the budget shortfall, when at the same time holding fast in the legislature against any tax increases in the senate, leading to the pathetic budget we currently have. Absolute genius in the way they managed to eat their cake and have it, too.
And finally: If Georgy would come out pro-gun, she'd be my ideal candidate. As it is, I'll take what she's offering. Definitely the choice my conscience will tell me to vote in October.
* I say "most" because, like a few other municipalities, the town in which I live chose to maintain its own municipal power authority instead of trusting PG&E, so while you're paying $400, I'm paying $65. Thank you, bitch. Suck it dry!
Even Jesus hates listening to Creed.
Every governor of California in the past 30 years has faced a recall petition drive, but only now has one been successful.
That's because the governor has always been impeached before the recall went through (for example, Evan Meecham in Arizona was impeached just before he was recall)
The real question is "How did CA *get* a $35B budget deficit?" The answer was basically that back during the dotcom boom, everybody's personal income was expanding by X% a year and corporate income by Y% a year, and if you believed everybody's business plans ("Enhancing Shareholder Value and Becoming Mozillionaires!"), CA's tax revenue would increase by the astounding rate of Z% a year, giving the State a humongous surplus so the politicians were busy arguing about how to spend it all before it got away. Of course, those predictions were all pretty bogus, and while tax revenues per Californian did keep going up, it wasn't as fast as spending went up, so we got a huge deficit. Cut back per-capita spending to about 1998 levels and there's no deficit.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Energy deregulation. A Republican idea, inflicted on our state by Pete Wilson.
-- The reason it's called the right wing? Irony.
Yes everyone...Vote with your dick. She's young and cute after all. And she can use BOTH vi and emacs!
:q!:q!:q! at the end of a response from someone who could potentially be ruling over me. She's 26. We don't even know if she can balance her checkbook, let alone run an economy worth 100 billion a year. I don't give a crap if she's a geek, I want someone who is capable of running a large business and can make informed decisions across a wide range of topics. NOT someone who's biggest decision of the day is whether to write a program in Perl or Python.
Boxers or briefs? vi or emacs? What kind of questions are those? When I'm paying out of my ass for car registration and funding for higher education is being cut left and right I don't want to hear about these asinine topics. I don't want to see a
-R
First, consider the approach of one of her competitors, Mr. Schwarzenegger (who it should be pointed out, has an economics degree):
"...bring businesses back to California. We have the most unfriendly business environment right now in California of any state. Businesses are leaving every day. They're expanding outside of the state. That means that people are getting laid off. Jobs are lost."
Now look at Miss Russell's platform. It is filled with anti-corporate rhetoric like "We deserve better than rich businessmen and career politicians trading money for power and power for money", "end corporate welfare to Bush's energy buddies", and so on. Rather than even trying to get business back to the state, she proposes tax hikes that will further slow an already dismal state economy.
It's easy to blame all of society's problems on corporations and on the wealthy. I'm not rich either, and it's a natural reaction to be jealous of those better off than oneself. But, in the long run, it's counterproductive. After all, who hires people, makes investments, and gets the economy moving again?
In a sense, California's economic problems are a foreshadowing or microcosm of what is happening at the national level: because of high costs of living and more business-friendly atmosphere elsewhere, companies are leaving. Whether the jobs are going from California to Iowa or from the U.S. to India, the inability to retain or lure back business causes lost jobs and a weakened economy. Is someone whose economic policies revolve around anti-corporate rhetoric and tax hikes really in a good position to reverse this trend?
i can't point it out either. where is CALIRORNIA anyway?
Seiously though I have heard statistics like that before and they are total crap. You would be hard-pressed to find someone that can not point out california on a map. if you are going by what you see on the tonight show with jay leno travelling the streets you should know they ask thousands of people before they find the dumbasses.
22% lowest ever? Lowest since they started tracking things, I'd buy. Things are poor, but not horrible. The Fed. Govt. is in a bigger hole and W.'s approval is doing well, but not for long, as it's sagging too. Most politicians are doing poorly in polls these days. Best to look to examples rather than just poll numbers.
Hitler's regime was stable, but rose out of the chaos of instability of economic turmoil and social upheaval post WWI, but obviously you don't consider history worth studying.
"Here's what I think..." [speculation and such blather snipped] No you don't think, you don't know either. California isn't all liberal. It's a pretty good mix of left and right. Even in the Bay Area San Fran is extremely liberal in respect to San Jose. Orange County and San Diego are very conservative. It's too bad people outside California don't realize these things, but just assume the state is full of whackos. Remember when Prop. 13 started in California? No, you probably know next to nothing about the west. Good place to start is reading Cadillac Desert.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
For some people it's a priority issue, for others it's not. My father died of cancer in a state which doesn't have medical marijuana, and it might have helped his last couple weeks of life. The reason it's not available is that the Political Correctness of the prohibitionists means that it's more important to maintain the drug war than to help sick people. And personally, I like the stuff once in a while, just as I like whiskey once in a while, and I find it personally offensive that the drug warriors think they own my body.
My highest priority is probably fiscal responsibility and cluefulness here, and while almost anybody including Georgy is better at that than Gray Davis, I'm not sure she's up to the job. But at least she's starting off with a political position that says she respects Californians' rights to their own personal choices.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Give her website a cursory glance, specifically some of the press releases and the more ... extraneous merchandise items on sale. The first thing I have to ask is "Is this for real!?"
But then again we do have Arnold Schwarzenegger running for governor so I suppose anything is possible. Look, don't get me wrong I like this lady and her opinions. But do you REALLY want someone this green running probably the most influential and progressive state in the US? Granted if I was registered in California I would vote for her anyway because I'm sure as hell not voting for some manufactured gimmick candidate or yet another geriatric self^H^H^H^Hspecial-interest whore, to paraphrase her response.
But then again I don't even live in the US, much less Cali so what good does that do
Because she's your typical Populist/Communist politician. Promise lots of free bread & free circuses, all the while ignoring the real issues, such as "How to get rid of the invading illegal immigrants who are sucking the hospitals, schools, prisons and other public services dry". You want to see the real budget buster, you neeed look no further. Any country that still had a functioning immune system would have made this invasion a military priority.
This was a gabfest- a chatroom transcript.
Californians should find it frightening that a wealthy Republican can buy himself another election.
Well, some of us, while not Republicans, don't buy into the Big Evil Republican Bogeyman that the opposition trots out every 3 nanoseconds in lieu of actual thought or ideas.
And Issa dropped out, so what's your point? He could have spent $100 million and not gotten 2 million signatures if the sentiment for a recall did not exist. Some of us find it refreshing to see that voters can still flex a little muscle. See the Constitution Of California, Article II, Sections 13-20. The recall election process is built into the state Constitution as well as the state election codes.There were stringent numbers to be met for the recall effort. The recall has stood firm against several legal and media challenges.
As for Republicans, the recall is also endorsed by the Libertarians and the American Independents. In fact, many key Republicans have the stance that they should be focusing more on defeating Barbara Boxer or re-electing Bush in the next regular elections.
Ah, what's the point... She's just another ideologue without any real, workable solutions. Does humanity really have to suck this badly?
--- Ban humanity.
Well, I realize I'm doing the exact same (tired and boring rant) as you by pointing this out, but don't you think that if people "butcher it all the time" that means that a word is in fact not "one of the simplest words to spell"
You missed a key word in my sentence: here. People here butcher it all the time.
and I'll not disagree that proper spelling and grammar are important aspects of communication, but the lack there of doesn't mean that a person's not making a good point.
When a person tries to make a good point, but when they communicate with the accumen of a donkey sipping yogurt out of farmers nipple, that point is lost because that person sounds like an idiot. I don't listen to idiots, because their points are either stolen, misinformed, or merely parroting what other people say.
Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
"first they came for the jews, but I was not a jew, so I stayed silent." ...
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Sorry - I didn't mean to imply the reason for opposition to gay marriage is bigotry. I believe that it is an attempt to gauge support for homosexuals - it correlates with societal nonacceptance for gays, but holding the opinion that gay marriage is wrong does not make one a bigot. Sorry if I implied so. I do not agree with the desire to force acceptance, but I think that it is part of the concept.
The last point is not completely accurate. Just because some people would choose the rights and duties of marriage remain as previous does not mean that women's rights don't contribute to the evolution of marriage. At minimum, the presence of those rights means that more people ask for things they previously would not have and the rules governing marriage change as a result.
What is "the natural state of affairs"? Both the original poster and you cite this as a justification for the state of marriage, yet presumably homosexuality came about by some natural process as well. What makes the historical institution of marriage a unique determinant of social health and future prosperity? (there must be data somewhere, but I don't know what it is or what its general acceptance is) This has the potential to be a feedback loop - social health and prosperity both depend to a significant degree on social mores, so using them as a justification for social mores could be flawed without hard evidence.
Ultimately, love is at best a necessary but not sufficient condition for a successful relationship. This is true for anyone. I don't think that desiring a homosexual marriage presupposes that love or physical attraction are the causes for the relationship, just as desiring marriage does not for heterosexuals. Banning homosexual marriage won't get rid of bad reasons to get married.
Dude, you have to remember that people have different opinions of attractiveness.
I personally find her very attractive. But I'm kind of into that whole "homely" look.
I am unamerican, and proud of it!
IRV has the following problems that plurality doesn't:
1) Massively more complicated ballot
2) Violates monotonicity (it is possible to actually cause a candidate to lose by voting FOR them). It should go without saying that this is evil.
3) Despite appearing to solve the spoiler problem, it actually has exactly the same spoiler issue as soon as the "third party" starts becoming competitive.
Consider the case of three parties, A, B and C, where A and B are the "mainstream" parties and C is a third party. Suppose that most of C's supporters prefer B to A, but B's supporters are split evenly between A and C for second choice (which is reasonable if B is the "center" party). For the sake of this example, we'll assume that the three parties are fairly close to equal in first-place votes. This gives the following distribution:
A: 1/3 of the population
B,A: 1/6 of the population
B,C: 1/6 of the population
C,B: 1/3 of the population
Now, as long as C stays in third place, it doesn't affect the race between A and B, but if C ever ends up with more first-place votes than B, it ends up handing the election to A - even though B would still win in a straight race between A and B.
(If it helps you to think of A, B and C as Republican, Democrat and Green, do so. Or as Democrat, Republican, Libertarian).
So in fact IRV is a sap to minority parties without actually helping them become part of the mainstream - because if they ever do, the spoiler problem rears its head again. So I stand by my statement that IRV is in *every* way worse than Plurality, and that switching to IRV would be even worse than the status quo.
As a Californian who signed the recall petition I'd like to start by saying that we know why Davis is a bad governor.
So we know why he's a bad governor. What we want to know, what we need to know, is how do you propose to fix this mess? Don't tell me how other people have failed, don't give me some generic line about how "special interest is running this state". Give me specific points of your plan to fix our financial problems.
She didn't answer the question at all. I mean, come on folks. "Boxers or Briefs"?? Who the hell cares!? This is serious shit! How are you going to keep my vehicle fees, gas taxes, and property taxes from tripling? That's what's important.
Content of this interview == null
She won't have my vote, and I live in California.
... wait a minute ... maybe I should move to a conservative state!
Is money really that bad? She speaks of companies like it's evil to look out for your own revenue.
Move to a socialist country
However, there are good beaches here, so I'm staking this out as my turf, and I'll try to defend it against the socialists as long as possible.
A republican bought the election? How about the voter grassroots support? I don't even dislike Davis that much, except for the fact that he doesn't have the interests of California at heart. I just want this state to get in the habit of firing people until we get somebody scared enough to do a good job.
Oh, and I hate to burst your bubble, but Marijuana is against FEDERAL law. Maybe you should address issues that have to do with the STATE. I'm all for legalization, but talk to the right level of government. I can't start a movement in LA to legalize murder in that city, because it's against state law.
I'd much rather have someone who surrounded themselves with knowledgable people than "diverse" people. I wwould use advisors for facts, and I make my own conclusions.
Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.
We clearly see some lines of code in the first Terminator. As my Computers for Business high school teacher pointed out, the Terminator was written in COBOL.
It was partly cobol, but also some 6502 assembly listings from Nibble magazine (god, I loved that mag!).
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
So you signed with out a petitioner present.
We got the petition on the internet, which was then legally passed around that house. No one was paid in that exchange.
Then what happened?
We sent it to the address taken off the website, not Issa's address but the headquarters for the "Recall Gray Davis" campaign. I know no Issa money was involved becuase, well he hadn't donated any money at that point. It was at that time staffed by volunteers (and continued to be staffed in part by volunteers even after Issa donated money).
Somebody verified they were legit.
The State secretaries offices in many counties did that without Issa donations. It is part of their duly designated job to just what they did.
Somebody got paid.
As they should have. Refer to the other person who more explicitely claimed that I was pretending no money was involved for a proper responce.
Thanks for playing, you can recieve a prize at the door.
Dean for President!
Um, isn't Dean an old rich white man?
Maybe in 8-16 years the above poster will realize that age really doesn't matter at all.
Let's not be naive now. Age does definitely matter. With age comes experience and wisdom that is lacking in a younger candidate. Of course, this must be judged on an individual basis for each person.
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
On a more personal level, I live in Manhattan
I'm just trying to figure out why so many people get so upset about how many penises and/or vaginas are involved in the transaction.
No good reason, near as I can tell. :) Other than tradition, which is a bad reason to do shit. I'm with Suicidal Tendencies on this one: Don't question shit just for the sake of questioning shit. Do it because you took the time to think about it and you figured out a better mutherfucking way. Or something like that.
I'm not trying to argue whether or not the State should be involved in such arrangements (me, I'd say "no", but that's just me). I certainly am arguing that the State should have nothing whatsoever to do with "covenants of sanctity".
I fully agree that the state shouldn't be involved in determining what marriage is. That means no tax laws involving marriage (although I like the ones involving kids, since I have 3 of them :) ). No laws regarding who insurance companies can insure based on marriage (they rule out common law marriage, in some cases, and they prevent gay couples from enjoying this benefit). And so forth. There are so many different ways people want to be married, and there are so many different configurations people want to have that the state just shouldn't be involved. Me, I think polygamy is a perfectly fine form of marriage, as long as all people involved agree of their own free will. I think that monogamy has its advantages, and its attraction, so that it will likely be the dominant form of marriage for a long time, but that there are advantages to other forms of marriage. Not to mention just plain cultural differences (although it seems like most cultures these days are in to monogamous marriage). I also don't understand what's wrong with two men in love wanting to spend the rest of their lives together (or women, if you prefer). For many of us, we spend so much time looking for love that we gain an appreciation for how hard it is to find someone. Why begrudge someone else the opportunity to take advantage of the love they've found just because we don't want it for ourselves? Petty, I say. Pure pettiness.
Seems like you could just enter into a legal contract if you want to protect yourself should your co-habitation arrangement go awry.
Therein lies the problem. For those of us that chose a traditional marriage, i.e. man and woman 'till death do us part, it would have been very offensive to create a civil contract to determine what happens when things go awry (I don't give a fuck how many people sign prenuptial agreements. If I thought I needed protection from my wife, I would't have married her, plain ad simple). The reason is simple: we wouldn't have made the decision if we thought things were going to go bad, and we both felt that if we thought there was a chance, however small, that things wouldn't work out, then we should not have gotten married in the first place. Many people make this decision, and fail to achieve their goal. That is when the state comes in (invited, actually) to settle who gets what. In my opinion, that is the only time the state needs to be involved. Therefore, the only laws made by the state regarding such agreements should be severely limited to property ownership in co-habitation agreements. This would apply to roommates as well (ever had a roommate that left, took some of your shit, and you couldn't do shit about it? I have....). Anybody who lives together, sharing resources, for a certain length of time or greater would be required to sign some boiler-plate contract that says "this is mine, that's yours". That way, couples getting married (or groups, or whatever) would be angry that they have to take inventory of their possessions, but since everybody would be required to do so, they would just bitch about it. If they don't do so, then the state would fall on default laws that should more or less split up property evenly upon the termination of the co-habitation. No playing
Like what I said? You might like my music