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

Emacs

[JohnGrahamCumming]

Given the Terminator's capabilities it/he is clearly a derivative of Emacs, not Vi. Arnold would not give you a blank stay he'd simply delete your buffer with a quick C-x k you (that's Emacs-speak for "Hasta La Vista, Baby").

John.

Re:Emacs

[Computer!]

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 because anyone with an answer has probably never had oral sex.

Re:Emacs

[Transcendent]

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 because anyone with an answer has probably never had oral sex.

Now now... don't take your shortcomings and complain about them on slashdot...

Re:Emacs

[Transcendent]

"Shortcomings" or "short comings"?

Neither... bad spacebar

Re:Emacs

[RevDobbs]

Sure, align Arnold with emacs... but what about Georgy's answer? "Both!" She certainly does have a career in politics ahead of her...

Re:Emacs

[shaitand]

if they have as much money as arnold, I'll guarantee you they've had oral sex.

Hell I think emacs actually performs oral sex now if you execute the key sequence ctrl+b-l-o-w then type the name of the target at the prompt. I think there might be a range limitation right now, but later I'm pretty sure they adding range head.

Re:Emacs

[leviramsey]

If I was in California, I'd vote for her. Decent policies and better looking than the other candidates.

What's not to like?

Re:Emacs

[chimpo13]

I'm glad I signed my name on her petition to run, but there's so many great unqualified candidates running I don't know who to vote for. Larry Flynt, the porn guy. Mary Carey, the porn star. Angelyne, the expensive hooker. Gary Coleman from Dirty Work. Hercules in New York.

I think the winner should be decided by a monkey knife fight.

Re:Emacs

[Wellspring]

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.

Skynet is evil.

Re:Emacs

[Krach42]

Good point, you never want to alienate any particular part of your voting base.

She also says that politicians should feel free to openly say what they really believe. I think somewhere deep down in her, she knows that VI is the better editor.

Re:Emacs

[Krach42]

You have just shown us all exactly why it was taken down. Georgy as a gubernatorial (giggle) candidate does not want her image slandered by numerous geeks hidden away in their rooms, slobering at her semi-seductive poses on their broadband...

And, speaking hypocracy, if you happen to find a mirror of said picture, let me know ;).

Re:Emacs

[Krach42]

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.

Re:Emacs

[nacturation]

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!).

Better reasons. . .

[Limburgher]

How about because she's smarter and cuter than Arnold? I mean, priorities, people. :

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

Of course, I live in Chicago. . .

Re:Better reasons. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

Your from Chicago and not planning on somehow casting your vote? Must be from the burbs!

"Chicago where even the dead vote early and often!"

Re:Better reasons. . .

[dipipanone]

To me she comes across as a naive college kid

While a .sig that promises a Dirty Sanchez is clearly the height of sophistication...

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.

Re:Better reasons. . .

[pascalb3]

I'm sorry, but this is a pretty ignorant way to base a vote, especially in an election that is already becoming a joke. That comment reminds me of:

Arnold Schwarzenegger has plenty of rich and famous friends. But to become governor of California, he really needs people like Marlon Sandoval. Sandoval, 26, a hip-hop musician and part-time security guard in Los Angeles, has never cast a ballot in his life. But he says that he'll go to the polls for Arnold "plain and simple". Sandoval, who saw "Terminator 3" last week for the second time, admits he has no idea where Arnold stands on the issues. "It doesn't matter," he says. "I'd vote for the Terminator anyway."

This is from this week's Newsweek, the whole article.

The sad part is that the parent's post and Marlon Sandoval (above) is probably how a lot of people are going to justify their votes; however, can you blame them? Look at some of the people running (Gary Coleman, Gray Davis, Arnold Schwarzenegger) most people won't know where they stand on issues or their history in politics, but will instead judge them by who they are. This is like ultra-democracy, where the People can recall a leader and anyone can run for office -- ultimately, the People have the final say, for better or worse.

Re:Better reasons. . .

[carlos_benj]

Perhaps Al's cadaver-like fluidity of movement had some bearing....

Re:Better reasons. . .

[nacturation]

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.

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. :)

Re:Damn!

[an_mo]

Is this real?

Re:Damn!

[McShazbot]

If you you're looking for cute among the Cali gubenatorial candidates, I'd say Georgy has some, um, stiff competition.

Re:Damn!

[Sinistar2k]

You're right. It's a damn shame she has some kooky belief that people need to face and resolve tough issues.

I just can't stand it when somebody wants to make a difference and does so by actually trying to get themselves into a position to do so.

Ambition sucks.

That's why my goal is to rule the world from within my Slashdot comments.

Re:Damn!

[the_consumer]

It's the right-wing, religious right who has problems with these issues. Fuck them.

Good plan. Let's fuck the jeebus right out of 'em. All we need is an army of tantric sex warriors.

Re:Damn!

[untaken_name]

It's the right-wing, religious right who has problems with these issues. Fuck them.

I'd like to point out that right wing and religious are not synonymous. Nor are religious and anti-(insert issue here)
Trying to pretend that all religions/religious people are the same is just like trying to pretend that everyone in the country is either right wing or left wing.
I'm an agnostic fiscal conservative who could give a fuck less if two guys or two girls wanna get married. I support legalization of all drugs, including making *all* drugs OTC. I hate the Republicrat party as well as the Demopublican party. My family is DEEPLY Christian and they don't have any problems with gay rights either. They also understand that one of the biggest messages of Christianity is to comport yourself well (would Jesus froth at the mouth with hatred for anyone?) and love everyone, regardless of their actions. That doesn't mean you SUPPORT what they do, it just means you don't hate them. Many vocal and visible 'Christian' people seem to have forgotten that they are not responsible for the actions of others, and thus they should have no control over them. I'd also like to point out that disparaging others' beliefs is not likely to convert them to your viewpoint.

IRV

[deanj]

The IRV thing seems to be rigged to circumvent the law that's on the books in California. The process of doing the recall is to get the person in office out of there, and to keep them out (as opposed to what Davis tried to do earlier in this process, which was to get himself onto the ballot too).

If they don't like the idea of having recalls, the recall law should be changed. They shouldn't be thinking of ways to circumvent it.

Re:IRV

[RenaissanceGeek]

Except that, as you so observantly noted, DAVIS ISN'T ONE OF THE CHOICES ON THE BALLOT.

The choice is:
Keep Davis.
XOR
Replace Davis with X.
Where X is the candidate selected by the voter.

There's no reason that IRV couldn't be used to make the replacement-candidate selection.

Re:IRV

[brlancer]

The IRV thing seems to be rigged to circumvent the law that's on the books in California. The process of doing the recall is to get the person in office out of there, and to keep them out (as opposed to what Davis tried to do earlier in this process, which was to get himself onto the ballot too).

Do you miss the absurdity that 49% of people could vote against the recall (arguably "for" Davis) but the new governor would be some millionaire jackass with 2% of the vote?

It's a bad law. Recalls are for politicians who lost; impeachment is for citizens who lost.

What crapola

[Reality Master 101]

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.

I cannot believe the whining about this. They needed FREAKING EIGHT HUNDRED NINETY THOUSAND VALID SIGNATURES. And that means they need to get twice as many just to make sure.

People of both parties have been lining up for this recall election because of the amount of hatred for Gray Davis. The guy is an absolute idiot. I'll never forgive him for signing those absolutely stupid power contracts. My power bill was FOUR HUNDRED DOLLARS last month.

To paint this as some sort of republican vendetta is absolutely idiotic, and if this guy doesn't understand that when he's actually running, then obviously he's too stupid to be governor.

Sorry for the rant, but I've heard this "buying a recall election" stupidity one too many times.

Re:What crapola

[rsborg]

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

1. Signatures can be bought.
2. 1.8 million signatures (ie, not valid votes) is MUCH less than the current total state population of ~30 Million, that makes LESS THAN THREE PERCENT OF THE TOTAL POPULACE that get to effectively push the redo button.

Re:What crapola

[Plutor]

1) Those 890,000 signatures cost Issa $2M of his own fortune to collect. A Poor Republican wouldn't have been able to get them.

2) If a 40% approval rating is all it takes to vote a leader out of office with Repulicans' blessing, maybe we'll be seeing a Pataki recall campaign sometime soon?

3) Georgy is a she.

Re:What crapola

[Anonymous Coward]

So you actually think it's HARD to get a million signatures. Interesting. Anyway, the rule for a recall in California is 12% of the people who voted for Davis. Davis only got 47% of the vote. The results. Thus, 53% of the population didn't want him at all. On average, if I stopped a person in the street, I'd have a > 50% chance of finding someone who never voted for Davis at all. Chances are that person would sign a petition to remove him.

Issa spent $1.7 million on getting signatures. This money was spent on people stopping random Californians and getting them to sign a petition. Thus, they spent around $1 per signature.

It's almost trivial to see how this whole thing works. If you spend enough money, you can get 1 million signatures for almost anything, especially for a "recall" of a governor. Expect to see more recalls in the future if this one passes.

Re:What crapola

[Martin Blank]

Children can't vote. Felons can't vote. Illegal immigrants can't vote. Unregistered people can't vote. That's a lot of the population that isn't able to legitimately sign. If half of the state population can vote, that doubles your percentage to 6%, and figuring that the turnout hovers around 50% as it is, that makes for 12% equivalent. Not so bad in those terms.

Re:What crapola

[Jeremi]

The guy is an absolute idiot. I'll never forgive him for signing those absolutely stupid power contracts.

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?

Re:What crapola

[arkanes]

I understand that you aren't very smart, but just for clarification, the comparison she was making is that gay marriage is superior to the concept of "civil union", which is what gay people get now.

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.

Re:What crapola

[kalidasa]

To paint this as some sort of republican vendetta is absolutely idiotic, and if this guy doesn't understand that when he's actually running, then obviously he's too stupid to be governor.

And if you think this is a he, you're obviously too stupid to vote.

Re:What crapola

[fahrvergnugen]

As I'm sure has already been pointed out to you:

1. Georgy's a woman.
2. 890,000 valid signatures (they actually collected, by some accounts, 1.6 million) is peanuts in a state of 33 million people. Only 2.6% of the entire population of the state had to sign in order to get the recall on the ballot. Spend enough time in the Republican strongholds of the central valley or Orange County, and you'll find those signatures no problem.
3. Darrell Issa, a hard-right Republican, spent nearly $1.8 million of his own money to hire people, perhaps illegally, to come in from out of state and collect signatures. Spend enough money and ask enough times outside of a supermarket and people will sign just about anything.
4. Your power bill was FOUR HUNDRED DOLLARS last month because power companies asked Californians to de-regulate the market, got voter momentum by promising lower electricity bills in expensive slick commercials, and then abused the open market and illegally gouged prices high. Once that was done, they offered 'cut-rate' prices on long-term contracts, in order to lock in the high prices they wanted before they were caught manipulating the market. Once they had their high prices locked in, they let the market churn subside. Davis made the correct decision, and the right decision, even the smart decision, in signing those contracts, based on the information available to the general public in 2001. That as consumers most Californians were robbed by these contracts is knowledge only available now, in hindsight.*

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!

Re:What crapola

[Anonymous Coward]

On a side note, I can't imagine why people feel so threatened by gay marriage.

(Disclaimer: The viewpoint below is not mine. I'm just summing up the POVs of many, many people that I know from growing up in the Bible belt.)

The common saw is that gay marriages are an "affront to the institution of marriage." For most Christian-raised Americans (and those of other religions), marriage is a sacred institute. The keyword there is sacred. It's a religious act, meant to join a man and woman in a relationship sanctioned by God, and the Bible is not particularly supportive of the idea of homosexual relationships. You can find a pro/con analysis of several verses here. To this point of view, sanctifying a homosexual relationship is just as ludicrous and evil as sanctifying a relationship between a man and a goat. For a priest to wed a gay couple is on the same level as the same priest saying that child molestation is okay or that Wiccans will get into Heaven just like good Christians do. It's a prideful declaration that modern man knows more about what God wants from us than the authors of the Bible itself!

That's the most commonly proferred explanation. I find that the most psychologically visceral reason for opposing it is in the sheer disgust that conservatives who oppose homosexuality feel for the act. The reasons why are irrelevant. The fact is that they believe that gay relationships fall somewhere on the spectrum of wrongfulness between lying and murder. As they are motivated to "improve" their surroundings, they cannot abide by someone who willfully and pridefully commits a sin over and over again. They would no more like to see gays sanctioned by the government any more than they'd like to see liars or murderers sanctioned by the government. This akin to the motivation behind pro-life protesters and anti-drug laws. What they see as a heinous act, they don't want supported and legalized by society.

That's what gay marriage is. It's one of the final steps towards full societal acceptance of homosexuality. The 3 most important barriers left for gays are marriage, priesthood, and adoption. If these barriers fall, then all taboos will fall just like they've done for gambling and just like is happening for abortion. They may be faced with the most horrible fate of all for one of their beliefs; their own kids could accept the gay lifestyle. You may scoff at the whole "what about the children" mentality, but that's deep at the core of what anti-gay marriage people fear. What if their own kids follow a path blazed by the non-believers around them. What if their own kids become gay?

That's why some people feel so threatened by gay marriage.

something's gonna pop

[billimad]

although she's not afraid to tackle that issue head-on, too

georgy..head..georgy..head..stop it godammit.

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.

Re:Perhaps a better question to ask Georgy...

[GoofyBoy]

http://www.georgyforgov.com/issues.htm#budget

Re:Perhaps a better question to ask Georgy...

[garcia]

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?

Re:Perhaps a better question to ask Georgy...

[monkeydo]

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.

Re:Perhaps a better question to ask Georgy...

[Fedallah]

Paraphrase: The deficit is bad. Tax the rich.

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

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

I'm glad she thought this one out.

Re:Perhaps a better question to ask Georgy...

[mrtrumbe]

Two things...

One, a lot of people don't have the money to begin with. For you, it may be a case of the government taking away your money to use in a less efficient way for a purpose which you either don't care about or could do more efficiently. For others, the government's use of that tax money is the only way they'll ever see those services (no matter how poorly the services are implemented or how wasteful they are).

Now, we could debate on wether those people who are reliant on those tax dollars are just lazy slobs living off of the productive members of society. Or we could debate about wether or not affluent people who weren't taxed would act in society's interest and fund the under-priviledged. But those are different subjects. My point is that your statement is not universally true.

Which leads me to the second point: YOU may be able to spend your tax money in a more efficient manner than the government can, but this is also not universally true. I hear this argument again and again, but the problem is that the argument is coming from intelligent, self-motivated, secure people. Of course a person in that position could manage his money/pay for his services more efficiently than a beurocracy. But now, lets look at the case of a person with less capabilities, less motivation, and less of a future. Do you expect me to believe that every person in America would act intelligently if given our tax dollars rather than government services? Hardly.

The fact of the matter is that a significant amount of people in this country NEED government services to one extent or another. Without those government services, they don't have the skills, money or motivation to make the right decisions and act in a way that ensures a decent and stable future. Again, we could argue about wether we should care about people who can't care for themselves for one reason or another, but thats a different topic.

However, your view is quite understandable to me. I, too, feel I could manage my money far better than the government. However, I am willing to sacrifice some of my wealth (which is not considerable, I might add) so that others are able to live decent and honorable lives. My route to less taxation is through quality education (for everybody), reducing corruption and waste in government agencies, and reducing the power of the corporate dollar on governmental policies.

We obviously have different views on how to solve the same problem. Are you, by chance, a libertarian?

Taft

Re:Perhaps a better question to ask Georgy...

[RealityShunt]

The wacky thing about all that (I was a MN resident until about 3 months ago when I got fed up and left) is that after Jesse got in office, we had a "reported budget windfall" which resulted in all MN taxpayers getting a check (I was at the lower end, but I still got almost $400).

Now they have a budget deficit, which apparently (?) resulted from some of Jesse's administrations policies.

I figured in the last few years that nobody knows what the hell they are doing over there. That isn't exactly why I left - I left because where I was living, on the Iron Range, the economy is tanking very hard. I ended up in Western South Dakota where the economy is in pretty decent shape. South Dakota, AFAICT, seems to have their shit together.

Is that lawsuit over the Iron Range mining grant still going? God, what a mess that was...the new governor pulling the funds after they were mostly spent!

sigh.

realityshunt

She does sound like a politician...

[FurryFeet]

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.

Re:She does sound like a politician...

[Anonymous Coward]

Parapalejic: Balkan paralysis victim.

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?

Re:She does sound like a politician...

[Nucleon500]

um, duh, this is /., adn speling flaims are lame.

Seriously, informal writing in English class is bad because you're supposed to be learning formal, proper English. Formal English in an election campaign (on Slashdot!) shouldn't matter, because you're supposed to be demonstrating your ability to govern, and endearing yourself to your audience, the Slashdot readers. What you're doing is somewhat akin to flaming Linus for odd English usage. I care much more about his kernel design, management, and C skills.

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?

[stratjakt]

It's still considered a drug, its prohibition "worked" and didn't cause a massive revolt like alcohol's did

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

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

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

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

Re:wasting time?

[BobRooney]

Relevant because:

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

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

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

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

So, lots of extra tax $$$, more law enforcement resources and a stoned and happy populace makes some sense.

Re:wasting time?

[caino59]

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.

Re:wasting time?

[monkeydo]

Sorry, but that's a crappy issue to pick to be a one issue voter on. How about a candidate's position on the free market, or right to privacy, or civil rights, or gun contol, or welfare, or things that actualy affect most people?

Re:wasting time?

[IWorkForMorons]

At risk of being modded off topic, which this completely is, I still feel I have to say something...

The issue is not only for pot smokers. While we (yes, I do admit it, and I do enjoy it) don't like the fact that one joint can get you thrown in jail, it is far more reaching then that. The entire cotton industry would thrown on it's ear if hemp were to be massively produced and manufactured into products. Not only that, but hemp can be added to other materials to increase their strength. Yet despite the fact that is does NOT get you high, it is still illegal because it is too closely related to pot. You can make up your own stories as to why this is.

As for pot itself, Georgy, in my opinion, hit the nail on the head. Why is alcohol legal and a profit maker for the government, while pot is illegal? Despite the echos of Reefer Madness, there is more to the story then most people realise. Check out the Woody Harrelson narrated Grass, which I thought did a nice job outlining the history even for a pro-pot production. Check out the web and learn what it really does, good and bad, and ask yourself why it is still illegal today. Don't simply say "it's illegal, so just don't do it." Ignorance of why it's illegal just purpetuates the myths.

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?

Re:wasting time?

[El]

It's only an issue for pot smokers.
Bullshit! I most definately do not smoke pot; and I don't think pot is a good idea for people who have to make a living through logical thought (it does appear to be beneficial for some artists, musicians, or others that make a living through creativity alone). However, as a civil liberties advocate, I beleive that every person has the right to take whatever poisons they choose into their own bodies, as long as they don't put other people at risk by doing so. Also, when something is criminalized, it becomes a source of revenue for criminals. If gangsters are shooting each other on the street in a struggle for control of a criminal enterprise, it effects ALL of us -- not just their customers! Remove the profit motive, and you remove the incentive for a lot of violence.

Re:wasting time?

[stratjakt]

Saying it's only an issue for pot smokers is like saying you dont like TIA or TIPS is only an issue for terrorists.

Everything is wrong with the current state of the drug laws. From the fact that they were all racially motivated (no opium to control the chinese, no cocaine to control the blacks, no marijuana to control the mexicans) to the ridiculous infrastructures put up to deal with addicts as criminals, to civil forfeiture. To the fact that the prohibitions are unconstitutional in the first place (oh ya, thanks for the amendment Ronnie - now we can make all sorts of crazy laws!)

Re:wasting time?

[RedRun]

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.

Umm, no. Posession of narcotic marijuana used to be a felony, but first-timers always got it knocked down to a misdemeanor. Now, your first time for simple posession is always a misdemeanor. And hemp is totally legal. There are shops right here in downtown Reno that sell a variety of hemp products. Also, Nevada is one of the few states that has legalized medical marijuana.

Re:wasting time?

[Martin Blank]

Possession of any amount of marijuana (even hemp with no narcotic effects) in Nevada, for instance, results in a manditory 25 year jail term - FOR FIRST OFFENSES!

Incorrect, as I read the law.

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

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

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

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

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

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

If the court deci

Re:wasting time?

[TheGratefulNet]

"first they came for the jews, but I was not a jew, so I stayed silent." ...

A politician indeed!

[yebb]

vi or emacs?

Georgy:

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

A very politically savey response, given the audience.

Boxers, Briefs and...

[terraformer]

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!

Everyone seems to forget the third option...
Comando!

Re:Boxers, Briefs and...

[IIRCAFAIKIANAL]

That's a good way to snarl your dangly bits. Only peoples wearing skirts (women, Scots) can get away with that.

Re:Boxers, Briefs and...

[arkanes]

Or the fourth... she sells Georgy for Goc thongs on her website, too...

Re:Boxers, Briefs and...

[B3ryllium]

I'd be scared if she had dangly bits.

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

[elefantstn]

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.

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

[bman08]

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ 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.

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

[Matrix272]

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.

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

[ealar dlanvuli]

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.

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

[FurryFeet]

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.

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

[lars_stefan_axelsson]

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.

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.

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

[Hatta]

Go ahead... try to find something in California that didn't go the way of the Left. Try to prove me wrong.

Ronald Reagan comes to mind.

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

[prockcore]

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)

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

[rscrawford]

Energy deregulation. A Republican idea, inflicted on our state by Pete Wilson.

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

[GutBomb]

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.

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

[ackthpt]

[off-topic reference, wtf is this about?] snipped.

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.

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:I don't understand her

[Havokmon]

Why is she dragging in money into the election?

Because when you don't HAVE a lot of money, you complain about those who do. OTOH, when you DO have a lot of money, you generally don't complain about those who have less..

Just wait until she makes some real money, then election funds will disappear from her agenda.

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?

Re:Slogan

[bman08]

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.

Two Things.

[spirality]

Concorcet's method is much better than Instant run off.

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

-Craig.

gov money

[Councilor Hart]

The right to receive contributions is for everyone, whatever policy they have.

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.

vi or emacs?

[stratjakt]

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

BZZZT WRONG! pico for both.

Grit in Craw...

[On Lawn]

I like her spunk, and her charge that politicians need a shake up. But I don't think she's correct on one particular statement...

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

This has a few problems.

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

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

It just seems rather disenginious to call this election "purchased" in any way shape or form. Probably becuase it margionalises how much even Democrats hate Davis.

Re:Grit in Craw...

[therevolution]

Issa paid signature gatherers $1 for every signature that was collected in the recall effort, which came to about $2 million out of his pocket. He did this because he wanted to run, but that was before Arnold was a sure thing (and perhaps before he found out that no one really likes him anyway).

So, tell me... do you think that, without the motivation of collecting $1 for every signature turned in, that anyone would have bothered to turn this recall election into a reality? Nope. Nobody else offered money for the signatures. So Issa bought a recall election. Simple as that.

Re:Grit in Craw...

[On Lawn]

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.

Re:Death penalty "costly?"

[Trigun]

I am still in favour of the 'Prisoner Island', where you send lifers to compete in escape attempts off the island. You sell the rights to FOX, and no more prison overcrowding, sidestep the death penalty issue, and eliminate the defecit via royalties.

Beats the hell out of just gassing them.

This recall was bought?

[mrami]

People keep saying that money bought this recall, like the people that voted for it got kickbacks or something. If politicians can throw money into advertising and get votes, the people have no one to blame but themselves! Don't point that finger! Don't do it!

Re:This recall was bought?

[kindbud]

Issa bankrolled the petition effort. Hired signature gatherers did the work for a fee.

I bet less than 10% of the people who signed the petition actually showup at the polls. Unless, of course, they move the polling to the Wal-Mart parking lot, where the petitions were signed.

The really hilarious part of all this, is that the Republican leaders that are behind the recall effort initially approached Schwarzenegger to cough up the cash, but Arnold declined. Then they hit up Issa, the car-alarm millionarie, who thought he'd get a run at Governor. Then The Terminator announces, and Issa is abandoned by the cabal and everyone else who fell all over themselves to endorse Arnold.

Poor Issa was crying on TV. And I was laughing my ass off!

Her poll is wrong..

[arcanumas]

Hmm disturbing....
Even though she is a Slashdoter , there is no Cowboy Neal option in the poll at her website

I wonder why...

Let's be fair ... I hate both parties

[Nept]

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?

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:An outsider's perspective

[Hatta]

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

So if you're ever sentenced to life in prison kill yourself. If you don't want to be cruel, make it optional and let the person decide. The number of false convictions being overturned by DNA evidence is appaling. Even more appaling is the number of cases that can't even be appealed because of DAs that don't want to admit they fucked up. I don't see how anyone can support a system with such immense potential for abuse.

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%:

Legalize Marijuana. Why stop there?

Funding !

[Etyenne]

My question was not mooded up enough to be sent to Georgy, but I wuold love to know :

Where does she get the money for this camplaign ? Personnal saving ? Friends and parents ? Others ?

Typical Idiot

[hemna]

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.

Naivete

[Hentai]

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.

/. inconsequentialties

[YrWrstNtmr]

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.

Re:/. inconsequentialties

[cK-Gunslinger]

Agreed.
Most interviews have 9 serious questions and maybe 1 that was modded +5 Funny. This one was 50% inconsequential musings from some ./ geeks.

I don't feel as if I understand her positions any more clearly than before the interview. (other than the fact that she is pretty naive and has a hatred for "rich republicans.")

Re:/. inconsequentialties

[swillden]

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.

Umm, her campaign is inconsequential and doomed before it starts, and everyone knows it (including her, I'm sure, although she won't -- and shouldn't -- admit it), so this whole /. interview is just an exercise in frivolity. That being the case, there's no reason at all not to ask silly questions, and there's no point whatsoever in asking her her about the real questions, because (a) her answers don't matter and (b) they're not entertaining. How do I know they're not entertaining? They're on her web site.

Note that I'm not slamming Georgy, she seems like a bright, thoughtful, determined and articulate person, and I think she probably has a great future in politics if that's what she wants to do. However, her future in gubernatorial-level politics is just that: future. Voters are not going to pick her, not even in this race where only a tiny constituency is required to win. Why? She's too young. It's not even a question of whether or not she could do the job, but of whether or not voters believe a 26 year-old could do the job. Most people older than her won't think she can, and most people her age and younger don't vote.

Frankly, in our TV-driven political system, she's probably too cute to win as well. Our politicians have to look good, certainly, and Georgy does look good, but she's the wrong king of good looking. Give her, say, 15 years and she'll still be a beautiful woman, but she'll look "elegant" rather than "cute".

I think what she's doing is great, and I hope she succeeds at raising a little awareness for her issues, and at beginning the process of building a political career that might someday give her a shot at the governorship. But, her campaign *isn't* serious, and therefore there's no reason we shouldn't have a little fun with it.

Speaking of frivolity, did anyone notice the Georgy for Governor Classic Thong? Betcha Gary Coleman doesn't have his own official campaign thong!

Re:I don't understand her

[Aidtopia]

I don't think she's referring to campaign contributions. I think she's referring to the fact that Issa personally put up a large chunk of the $3+ million raised to collect the signatures necessary for the recall.

Re:Slogan

[Rogerborg]

Another thing wrong with commies is that they've got no sense of perspective or humour.

She'd lose my vote...

[sab39]

She'd lose my vote, if I were Californian. Not because of her naivete: I'd rather have a naive governor than one that's experienced in, and jaded by, the current political system. People who don't realize that what they're trying to do is impossible are far more likely to succeed than those who know it is.

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

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

I'm aware of the technical superiority of Concordet methods, and support them for elections in which all voters are highly educated, but the complexity of the ballot sheets should rule it out along with IRV for elections to public office, IMO.

Re:She'd lose my vote...

[sab39]

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.

Re:Slogan

[Eric Ass Raymond]

Thanks for the chuckle.

I'll blatantly copy your post whenever I have to give an example of a moron "what-I-believe-is-right" conservative.

Re:Legal smoking is not a justification for legal

[zootread]

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."

I'd like to know what her feelings are

[Rogerborg]

On access violations. I'd overflow her buffer any day.

Ah, good.

[Valdrax]

Not only is she smart, but she's damned cute too! She's got my vote!

I'm glad to see that we the American people continue to be issue-driven in our selection of candidates.

Ask Flynt: "Georgy Russel or Mary Carey?"

[cryptochrome]

...and when he says "Preferably both together" that's one less semi-serious candidate to worry about.

well that answers that (not)

[spamchang]

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

Re:I would never vote for her

[plasticmillion]

I strongly dispute the idea that a candidate must be geriatric in order to govern effectively. And I can't even imagine why you would claim that "she probably wants to become the second pregnant governor". Presumably any woman who isn't postmenopausal is suspect in any position of authority?

I think one of the most debilitating things about the American political system (and most others) is that so much emphasis is placed on a candidate's age. Of course, all other things being equal, I would prefer to have a candidate who is more experienced and poised, and therefore older. But all things are most assuredly not equal, and there are plenty of other factors that should be given equal weight (particularly the candidate's policies, which you seem to disregard entirely).

An effective leader of a complex organization like the California government is going to surround his/herself with advisors anyway, so it is hardly necessary (or possible) for them to have years of experience with every imaginable issue. Tell me that Arnie (or Dubya for that matter), at 56 years old, has a vice-like grip on all the issues facing the state. Much more important is that the candidate has his/her head in the right place and sets the overall direction that is best for the state.

In business, it is rare but definitely not unknown for a CEO to be in his/her 20s (consider Michael Dell, Steve Jobs and... that other guy). It takes an exceptional individual to achieve this, but why shouldn't the same exceptional individuals be given their shot in politics?

Reading the interview I didn't know anything about Georgy other than the fact that she is a woman dubbed "The Geek Candidate" by /. I found her views to be extremely sensible (surprising so, in fact), and discovering afterwards that she is young and good-looking did nothing to change my mind.

Re:Thats easy, shift the tax burden to the rich.

[telstar]

"I dont think the majority of poor people in cali would care if the billionare and millionares pay more taxes. Just shift the taxes to people who can afford to pay them and leave taxes for the majority of the people the same, suddenly the deficit gets paid."

• I kept waiting for the "In Soviet Russia" at the end of that suggestion.
• 
  
  Look, you can say 'tax the rich' ... but to many Californians, the salary I make makes them consider me rich. It's all about perspective. From somebody's perspective ... I'm rich. I'd have a hard time agreeing with somebody that's poorer than me, or unemployed who says I should pay most of the taxes because I earn more. I may earn more, but I shouldn't have to pick up their share of the state's problems. Maybe they should've have left their secure job and jumped on the dot-com bandwagon working for a place that paid them in stock options. Maybe they should've stayed in college instead of quitting early to startup DeliverySillyPutty.com. Maybe they're just not all that smart and are destined to never earn very much. Maybe they're lazy.
  
  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 .... but to dump the tax burden on one group of people because it's the popular solution doesn't seem fair. After all, there's somebody financially below you that'd be more than happy if you paid all of their taxes. Suck it up ... or move.
  
  And as a side-note ... I don't give a shit whether she prefers boxers, briefs or going commando. She was put in a position to answer some useless questions, and I suppose her only option was to answer them ... but the questions sent to her show the tone that the entire election has taken on ... one of stupidity and comical value for political control over a state that's got a lot of serious issues up in the air. I'm glad I don't live there.
  

Re:Homosexual marriage

[rbird76]

You mean, as opposed to the detrimental consequences now?

The significant (30-50% of marriages) number of divorces indicate that whatever the social idea of marriage is, it is not completely congruent with the legal definition of marriage. When most of the conceptual rules of the institution as well as the relevant laws for marriage were made, women did not have the power to determine rules and laws for marriage; only recently (100 yrs) have they had rights at all. The institution of marriage has been weakened more by negating the rights of a large portion of its participants than any other factor. The recent changes to marriage are partly a response to the newfound rights of women. There have been a variety of other significant changes over the history of marriage (divorce, dowry, age of consent) - marriage was able to change to accommodate the society in which it is established. If society wants the institution changed then it will do so; if not, then it won't. If there is popular support for gay marriage, then the institution, like lots of others, will change or become irrelevant to many.

If gay marriage is a social engineering project, I think that its purpose is to attempt to induce/compel tolerance for gay people by showing that they can live within a similar framework of law and culture. I don't think it can work that way, but support for gay marriage is certainly an indicator that society is willing to look at gay people without active hatred. I don't think the purpose of gay marriage is to change gay behavior, but to change heterosexual behavior towards gay people.

I believe that marriage should cover only certain types of relationships (long-term, monogamous ones or, at minimum, stable relationships with reasonable abilities to care for young), because of the likely cost to society and the moderate fit to historical standards, but I have a hard time believing that the concept of gay marriage (particularly in long-term monogomous relationships) will do any more violence to the concept of marriage than has already been done in recent history.

Runoff elections can be unfair too

[Col. Klink (retired)]

There are 17 voters and 3 choices (call them X, Y and Z).

The 17 voters are split into 4 factions with the following preferences:

6 voters prefer X over Y over Z
2 voters prefer Y over X over Z *
4 voters prefer Y over Z over X
5 voters prefer Z over X over Y

In the first election, everyone votes for their favorite choice:

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

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

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

Now assume that the 2 voters (*) with preferences (Y,X,Z) had decided that "X" really was the best candidate and change their preferences to (X,Y,Z). All other preferences remain the same:

6 voters prefer X over Y over Z
2 voters prefer X over Y over Z *
4 voters prefer Y over Z over X
5 voters prefer Z over X over Y

In the first election, everyone votes for their favorite choice:

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

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

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

The only change between the first and second cases was that X was more preferred by 2 voters. Because of the additional support, X lost.

Re:Runoff elections can be unfair too

[Col. Klink (retired)]

Kenneth Arrow proved mathematically that all elections will fail at least one of these minimal definition of fairness:

Unrestricted Domain: Any preferences are allowed.

Undifferentiatedness: different permutations of the same preferences must not lead to different outcomes.

Neutrality: the voting method does not favor any outcome.

Condorcet Criterion: if an alternative beats or ties all other alternatives in a pair-wise match, it ought to win.

Consistency: if the electorate is divided into subsets, and if one outcome is favored or indifferent in all subsets, the union of those subsets should lead to the same outcome.

Where were the GOOD questions? Really.

[teamhasnoi]

Answer: Still on the question page. I happened to ask a pretty good question about her patent holdings that was modded up to 5 and it got shelved for 'boxers or briefs', 'vi or emacs', 'did you pay SCO', and 'hope to win or shake things up' (best of the shitty questions)

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.

Typical Politician...

[QuackQuack]

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

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

Socialist.

[snarkasaurus]

Tax the rich, feed the poor = Socialist.

Socialist = bankruptcy

Next.

It's not, and she will not get my vote

[doc_traig]

You won't see Gary Coleman tolerate that kind of sloppy techno-scrawl...

CA Budget Deficit

[billstewart]

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.

Re:Homosexual marriage

[Henry V .009]

Your point about the social engineering aspects of this is certainly well taken. I do not dispute the good intentions of this arrangement. I only point out that once it exists, few homosexuals will take advantage of it, and it will wind up being used as a stick to beat the other 99% of the homosexual community that maintains the present social pattern.

I fully agree that the real damage to marriage has already been done, and compared to that, this is really a side debate. I would like to point out, however, that the status of women in Western societies has always been higher than that of contemporaries, and marriage has been stronger in the West than in other places. Because of that status, even. I think that much of the real damage done to the marriage arrangement has been the government subsidization of single-motherhood, mass government interference in divorce and custody disputes, and a inefficient mass public education system that delays the responsibilities of adulthood long past physical maturation. I do fear however, that if we lose the battle for even the concept of what marriage is, none of those other issues will ever be addressed.

Rant alert - Mod me down if you want

[retro128]

Yes everyone...Vote with your dick. She's young and cute after all. And she can use BOTH vi and emacs!

Boxers or briefs? vi or emacs? What kind of questions are those? When I'm paying out of my ass for car registration and funding for higher education is being cut left and right I don't want to hear about these asinine topics. I don't want to see a :q!:q!:q! at the end of a response from someone who could potentially be ruling over me. She's 26. We don't even know if she can balance her checkbook, let alone run an economy worth 100 billion a year. I don't give a crap if she's a geek, I want someone who is capable of running a large business and can make informed decisions across a wide range of topics. NOT someone who's biggest decision of the day is whether to write a program in Perl or Python.

Re:Rant alert - Mod me down if you want

[greymond]

I fully agree - most of those questions have no bearing on what is important for the next Gov. of CA to do. It may have been better to ask questions dealing with actual CA issues like the deficit, the unemployment rate, gov funded institutes and education, etc... and then maybe throw in a question about vi and emacs as a last question leave on a funny note kinda thing.

If I was to interview Arnold or Larry Flint I wouldn't ask them about pointers on body building or fondling hot women.

Re:Homosexual marriage

[On Lawn]

The significant (30-50% of marriages) number of divorces indicate that whatever the social idea of marriage is, it is not completely congruent with the legal definition of marriage.

I'm not quite following here. A succesful marriage is one that adheres to the legal definition? I'll give that a successful marriage adheres to natural laws of conjenial relationships (decided by evolution, nature, or whomever you consider fashioned humanity, fashioned those laws with unique strictness). But the legal definition is as Henry points out, an acknowledgement of a natural state of heterosexual unions. One that forms a bond that is recognized for certain unique and powerful capacities to determine social health and future social prosperity.

For a homosexual union to be classified the same, shows a marginalization of these capacities and even ignores their importance. Ignoring those capacities is like ignoring the capacity of a person with a gun to either save your life or take it.

When most of the conceptual rules of the institution as well as the relevant laws for marriage were made, women did not have the power to determine rules and laws for marriage;

This is not true. If you went back to 1000BC, you would find a mesopetamia and Egypt that established marriage contracts. The husband and wife (represented by her father more than dictated by her father) would spell out his duties and obligations they would perform and expect from each other. They were then bound by the obligations of that contract.

But more to the point, I'm not sure where you are going with this point either to be honest.

marriage was able to change to accommodate the society in which it is established.

Oddly enough with the freedoms you ascribe to marriage, one would expect a much more broad definition of marriage to have evolved considering the different cultures and empires throughout history. Yet each society seems to always settle on the idea that it requires a man and a woman. One can argue that is an indication that marriage has to do with the relationship as much as the nature mandated endowments that it recieves. The "Love Relationship" that homosexuals claim marraige is based on produces the numbers that you point out, lousy marriages even for heterosexuals.

If gay marriage is a social engineering project, I think that its purpose is to attempt to induce/compel tolerance for gay people by showing that they can live within a similar framework of law and culture.

I'll agree that this is the basic premise of the social engineering. To me it amounts to essentially a dramatic pulling the rug out from under an institution. Most of the benefits that homosexuals consider locked out of, ones mentioned by Georgy, are products of not government interaction but market forces. Marriage benefits to employees and investitures from banks, etc... are all created by market forces on what marriage has meant to them and society. Now changing the definition of marriage rips out the rug underneath these non-governmental forces. The results are not easily predicted, but range from nothing happening to benefits being denied to everyone.

Also, I take personal exception to the notion (as mentioned before) that people who wish to defend the marriage definition are doing so out of hatred, bigotry or another demonic self-fulfilling purpose. I think such charechtarizations are unfair, and unwarranted. As a person whos personally spent a very friendly christmas dinner that included the company of a southern baptist, wicken priestess, child molester, a lesbian couple, and a Mormon couple in one sitting, I can attest to the nature of tolerance and friendship that is possible without having to force "heterosexuals to give up what they think marriage is".

but I have a hard time believing that the concept of gay marriage (particularly in long-term monogomous relationships) will do any more violence to the concept of marriage than has already been done in recent hi

It's the economy

[Experiment 626]

While Miss Russell raises interesting points (especially about technology, and about voting systems that eliminate spoiler effects), I think her economic policies are clearly a step in the wrong direction.

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

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

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

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

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

Re:"Both" parties?

[billstewart]

Eh? There are more than two parties, and lots of independents who voted for this recall. Georgy's running as an independent, and until Arnold formally declared and Bustamante got in, the lead candidate was the Green Party's Peter Camejo. There are Libertarians and Greens and American Party and Peace&Freedom and Natural Law candidates and lots of independents running. (Probably others, but the CA Secretary of State website list of candidates is currently broken so I can't check.)

Davis *is* an idiot. He inherited a broken system set up by previous State Reptile Pete Wilson (who was from the Social Conservative side of the Republican Party, not the Fiscally Responsible side), which had been running long enough to display its weaknesses but not long enough to collapse, and he and his advisors weren't bright enough to either understand the problem or to fix it. I didn't expect him to, but I didn't expect a long-time insider like him to fail so spectacularly in so many ways :-)

I'll probably vote my conscience and partisanly pick Jack Hickey the Libertarian, but he's got a *really* bad website, and I may vote for Georgy.

About Georgy

[Kallahar]

About Georgy: http://www.georgyforgov.com/

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

"As a progressive, Georgy sees fairness as the underlying tenet which should frame decision making in California."

cut the budget or raise the taxes?

[ChristTrekker]

I'm a native Minnesotan, and I couldn't agree less. Virtually every state in the nation greatly increased spending on social programs during the 90's, as if the tech boom was going to expand forever. Obviously it can't, and it didn't. So what's wrong with rolling back to, say, the 1990 budget? If the current budget is 50% higher (pulling that number out of the air) I sure don't see that I'm getting 50% better value from state services than I was in 1990.

I'm completely in support of cutting those services that were expanded in the last decade. We were getting by without them before, and we can do so again. Many of those things ought not be provided by government anyway. I feel higher education is one of them. If you want to get educated, pay the tuition. Why should you expect everyone else to pay for you?

I've always wondered when the state "shuts down" non-essential offices when the budget is stalled in the legislature, why aren't all those offices closed permanently? If they're non-essential, why are we paying for them? Let the more efficient private sector provide them on a competitive basis.

I didn't vote for Pawlenty, but I'm glad to see he's holding the line on this.

You made a typo ...

[Hektor_Troy]

Maybe in 8-16 years she will have learned enough to win.

Obviously you meant

Maybe in 8-16 years she will have earned enough to win.

This IS the United States of America, remember ...

Re:wasting time with marijuana issue?

[billstewart]

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

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

Er... double ewe tee eff!?

[Second_Derivative]

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

Good thing she's not serious

[BECoole]

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.

Shoot the person who selected the questions!

[HarveyBirdman]

Where's the questions on energy policy? Where's the challenges to the FUD on her site? Where's the questions about the economy- you know... the thing that sparked the recall election in the first place? Geez, at least toss in one about the car tax.

This was a gabfest- a chatroom transcript.

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

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

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

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

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

Re:She does sound like a politician... [DUH]

[Xerithane]

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.

Re:It works for Ahnold, why not for Georgy...

[bman08]

Arnold was a big supporter of prop 187 which sought to deny services to undocumented aliens.

Georgy - IRV is fatally flawed!

[ChristTrekker]

I'm opposed to recall for a very different reason: it's a kludge to "fix" a broken voting system. The possibility of being elected with less than 50% support is bad, but recall is not the best way to fix it. If he's really doing that bad, there should be an impeachment process. The problem there is that the legislature is also elected with the same broken system. There's nothing wrong with proposing a new voting system to fix California's ills. What really needs to be done though, is to address the fact that plurality voting is a broken system by replacing it with a better one!

However, IRV is not the method that should replace plurality voting. Condorcet trounces IRV in every way that matters - even plurality is demonstrably better than IRV! IRV is deceptive because it gives voters a false sense that they've got a real choice, but in reality it's just as bad as the current plurality system. Run-offs need to be done simultaneously (Condorcet) not sequentially (IRV) to be fair.

Implementing Condorcet would encourage third party involvement. We need more voices in government, not fewer. After all, two choices is only one more than they had in communist Russia, and both options of the "Duopoly" gravitate toward the middle to get votes. That's not real choice! If you look at voter turnout in presidential races from 1960 on, it was a steady downward decline...with one exception: 1992. What happened in 1992? Ross Perot ran a strong third party campaign. It's clear that people want choice in politics.

Vote third party. Vote your conscience regardless of what the pundits and "strategists" say. The only strategy you should need in the booth is honesty to your ideals! The only way we're likely to see voting reform is if we get a third party into office, but we're going to have to do it with the current broken system.

A bit on the "progressive" (liberal) side...

[Whatsmynickname]

Granted, she's got the nerdy young male vote, but when I looked at her stand on issues, I had to do a double take to make sure that she wasn't Cruz Bustamante in drag!

No thanks for me... I want someone who will attempt to cut the ultrafat budget that California has now.

Re:Slogan

[bofkentucky]

Bud, I live in the sticks, tobacco farmers, factory workers, dope growers/manufacturers and people drawing a check off of uncle sam is who lives in my neighborhood (if you can call it that)

Re:Homosexual marriage

[rbird76]

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.

Not *totally* legal

[autechre]

You won't get arrested for hemp, but the FDA outlawed food products made with hemp a little while ago (fortunately, that was reversed; hemp pretzels are really good). And there are only a few states in which you can grow hemp, and even there you have to jump through all sorts of hoops.

And to think that during WWI (I think it was I and not II), farmers were _required_ to grow hemp. No, for the record, I've never smoked marijuana and don't plan on it. But I do have some very nice clothes which are cotton/hemp blend, and they're more comfortable and durable than the 100% cotton ones (and seem to hold dyes better).

One small problem...

[lysium]

...in your otherwise valid criticisms.
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.

Not without sweeping reforms of the entire capitalist medical system. If a poor family was forced to cover themselves with insurance, in addition to house and car payments (and added expenses related to such), throw in food, and POOF -- post-industrial peonage. You have just enough money to live a joyless existence, keeping you and your family alive only to perform whatever mediocre jobs are available. Forget saving for college, retirement, anything. Not a good idea.

========

The most important question

[JustAnotherReader]

The most important question wasn't selected, or answered. Here's the only question that matters:

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

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

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

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

Content of this interview == null

Obviously...

[B Ekim]

any californian slashdotter will vote for Mary Carey

Re:Yes and thats what we need.

[pizzaman100]

Old people seem to be doing a bad job, look at cali, its run by old rich white men, perhaps its time for change.

Dean for President!

Um, isn't Dean an old rich white man?

Re:It works for Ahnold, why not for Georgy...

[bolthole]

Yeah, but most of 'em cant vote...

(joke, its a joke :-)

Re:I wasnt talking about you.

[telstar]

"If you have all the money you should pay all the taxes."

• I'd agree with that ... only if I was the only one making use of the services that the taxes pay for. Taxes pay for services that EVERYBODY makes use of. Because of this ... EVERYBODY should be responsible for paying for these services. As much as this website likes to push the "it's all free, open source" agenda, stuff costs money ... and if you use it, more times than not, you need to pay for it.
• 
  
  On a more personal level, I live in Manhattan ... trust me ... I already pay plenty of taxes.

Re:Slogan

[Anti-HanzoSan]

Of course, you realize, that a bunch of us are going to come and beat you to a pulp and steal your land and your belongings, and the police will laugh since you're not paying for their services anymore.

Not necessarily. There have been societies where police protection has been privately purchased:

http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Iceland/I ce land.html

Or maybe we'll just set your house on fire, and the fire department will be on hand to protect the belongings of taxpayers.


And my (privately paid for) insurance company will be on hand to put out the fire in my house, which was the way it was done before socialized fire departments. You'd have a sticker in your window indicating who your provider was, similar to the way you put an ADT sticker in your window indicating who your security provider is.

Just because you'd like to use the government to freeload off of your neighbors doesn't mean it's a societal necessity. There's plenty of historical evidence demonstrating it's not.

Re:Slogan

[fucksl4shd0t]

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