Georgy Tells Why She Should Be California Gov

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

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

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

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

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!

Comments

Damn!

[Surak]

Not only is she smart, but she's damned cute too! She's got my vote! Oh, wait, I don't live in California. Damn. :)

Perhaps a better question to ask Georgy...

[LinuxParanoid]

Those were the 10 questions?

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

--LP

P.S. For the curious, dselect is the Debian package manager, documented here.

wasting time?

[garcia]

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

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

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

You haven't really answered my question though. Of course the mainstream politicians avoid them like the plague, they know that they are possibly detrimental to their campgains. Why don't you think that they will be detrimental to yours?

Re:wasting time?

[Noren]

Yes, it's an issue for pot smokers.

And people who care about civil liberties in general.

And people who care about the erosion of the 4th amendment through 'anti-drug' property confiscation and presumption of guilt laws.

And people who don't like the organized crime that prohibition encourages and indirectly finances.

And people who don't want to support the huge numbers people in jail for pot 'offenses'.

And people who don't want to support the huge amount of law inforcement and judiciary dedicated to pot per^h^hrosecution.

Thankfully, since California doesn't have any crime or any budgetary problems, we should just ignore the issue and continue throwing massive amounts of money into the bottomless pit of the 'drug war'. Right?

Not pro or con - recall here, but...

[ackthpt]

They needed FREAKING EIGHT HUNDRED NINETY THOUSAND VALID SIGNATURES. And that means they need to get twice as many just to make sure.

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.

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.

Too bad there's not a political IQ test people have to pass to vote.

Re:I don't understand her

[forkboy]

She's probably referring to large corporate campaign contributions, not private donations. The former is the problem with our elections today, where politicians loyalties can be bought for the average salary of an experienced engineer. It's a sad state of affairs.

Re:She does sound like a politician...

[Xerithane]

She does, and she definitely sounds like she's trying to get in good with the geeks. Her usage of "$$$" instead of writing "money" is a major turn-off for me. I'm curious if she writes "Micro$oft" as well?

I expect politicians to represent themselves professionally, and that includes their writing. If you wrote $$$ in English 101 at your local community college, you'd get a shitty grade on the paper. Why is it ok when you are running for governor?

Have you ever visited agricultural California?

[Speare]

Yeah, I missed the original questioning round, but I think the slashdork crowd missed some serious chances to highlight a serious candidate.

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

An outsider's perspective

[ShatteredDream]

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

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

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

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

Just a little critique from an outsider.

Re:Better reasons. . .

[Silvers]

This was modded up as insightful?

Someone merely spouting off against her campaign as weak, uninteresting and pointless without even providing any basis for such comments?

Personally, its very refreshing to see someone respond candidly about issues, many of which you wouldn't see a politician touch with a 10-foot pole.

Maybe in 8-16 years the above poster will realize that age really doesn't matter at all.