Internet Co-inventor Vint Cerf Endorses Obama

SEAActionFund writes "Vint Cerf, Google's Chief Internet Evangelist who also happens to be credited with co-founding the Internet, submitted a video to our AVoteforScience YouTube challenge. In it he discusses the importance of net neutrality and endorses Barack Obama specifically because he supports net neutrality (John McCain does not.) The AVoteForScience challenge calls upon scientists to upload videos to YouTube explaining who they are voting for and why. The first two videos were by Cerf and the 2008 Nobel Prize winner in Chemistry Marty Chalfie. Any Slashdotters game for explaining who they are voting for and why?" Still waiting for one of the campaigns to ask for my endorsement, which is totally available to whichever campaign offers me the better cabinet seat.

Comments

Not like it matters much ...

[CrackerJackz]

A staggering number of people in this country dont believe results that these scientists / engineers come up with, I don't think the (Quoting Palin) *ahem* 'Joe Six Packs' of this nation care.

This election is going to come down to what it always does, who has: 'who's the candidate I can see having a beer with'

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17316144

Re:Not like it matters much ...

[bzipitidoo]

Scientists are not voting Republican. Among serious contenders with a chance, that pretty much leaves the Democrats. Scientists have never been so united in opposition to a party. Science should be apolitical, but it can't be this election.

The reasons are easy. Republicans have no respect for and little understanding of science. Science is all about the truth. Let me emphasize that-- truth. We have our Scientific Method, dedicated wholly to asking all the questions we can think of, leaving no stone uncovered, and getting the best, most accurate answers we can. But these jokers haven't hesitated to throw science under the bus and whip up obviously wrong, flawed, and outright lying studies time and time again to support positions they had already unreasoningly decided they like. As Colbert said, they make facts based on decisions. They have exploited public misunderstandings of what science is to push their agendas another few steps, and haven't troubled themselves about the costs of the public confusion they've created. So we hear people saying that science is just another religion, and they say that like they really believe it. We have the wretched, unfair catch phrase "flip-flop" which was supposed to describe a person who doesn't stick to their principles, but has instead been perverted to smear anyone who changes their approach thanks to new information. Bush Administration regard for science is extremely backhanded-- the fact that they trot out manure and bother to dress it up as science shows that they do recognize that science has a good reputation. They don't seem to get that this abuse of science is detrimental to that very reputation they're trying to use. The Republican Party, once the party of fiscal responsibility and prudence, has degenerated to this. To being an unholy alliance between liars with industrial agendas and liars with religious agendas. They're united only in the lying. They use the same dishonest techniques to push their very different agendas. Remember, Exxon wanted scientists to say Global Warming wasn't real, was just a big liberal conspiracy. "Doubt is our product". Social conservatives absolutely love "evidence" of liberal conspiracies, and are willing and ready to run with that idea anytime, and also take a leaf from that playbook and commission studies to answer such leading questions as "Is abortion detrimental to women's health?" Don't forget that lying Bush administration flunky, George Deutsch, who dared to censor scientific research. Everyone has heard how the administration cooked the evidence on Iraq, but there's far more abuse than that. Cheney bears most of the responsibility for the Klamath River Fish Kill. We're suffering myriad health problems that could be directly attributed to pollution, but we don't know as much as we should because research in those areas has been strongly discouraged. And we can only speculate on what medical advances we could be benefiting from right now if only stem cell research hadn't been suppressed. McCain seemed like he might break away from this terrible direction and take the Republican Party towards a more honest stance, but his pick of a social conservative global warming skeptic for running mate shows that he's given that up. I'd like the Republicans to be a reasonable choice again some day, but it won't be today, not by a country mile.

That's why scientists don't seem to have credibility. I sadly suspect "Joe 6 Pack" isn't going to be in the least impressed by the endorsements of scientists. How is Joe supposed to tell which science is real, and which is a pack of self-serving lies that shouldn't be called science? And why should he care? Thanks to this vicious campaign of misuse and abuse, he has serious doubts about the relevance and trustworthiness of science itself, which in any case, he just doesn't understand. He gets no help in understanding science, quite the opposite. No help from those liars with agendas who want to use Joe's confusion and anything else readily usable to manipulate Joe's opinions.

Barr

[Jaysyn]

I'm voting for Barr because neither one of the Republicrat candidates represent my views.

It is my belief that representing you views is the only reason you should vote for any candidate, but the voting population has been gamed for so long they are like Pavlov's dog.

Re:Barr

[PunkOfLinux]

I think a lot of people here on slashdot would like to vot for a third party. It's just that if we act sincerely, we end up more fucked than if we act strategically. Nader got, what, half a million votes? If those votes had gone to Gore and then Kerry, we wouldn't have had 8 years of Bushy shitness. Sure, those people might have liked Nader better, but instead of their candidate, or even the next best candidate in their view, we get ... dubya.

Re:Barr

[Abreu]

Sure, those people might have liked Nader better, but instead of their candidate, or even the next best candidate in their view, we get ... dubya.

True.

I don't vote on the american elections, however their results affect the entire world.

So I would also like to remind slashdoters that the entire world is hoping that we don't end up with an american president who believes that the earth is 6000 years old and who believes that living a few hundred miles away from siberia gives you foreign policy experience.

(Because seriously, McCain is not going to last more than two years... Not with the pressures of being president!)

Re:Barr

[Sloppy]

It's just that if we act sincerely, we end up more fucked than if we act strategically. Nader got, what, half a million votes? If those votes had gone to Gore and then Kerry, we wouldn't have had 8 years of Bushy shitness.

Yes, but if Nader supporters had voted Democrat instead, you would have had years of a Democrat president without any signal that you wanted more Naderesque policies. I understand that you would prefer a Democrat to Bush, but you also sent a painful message to that party about what kind of government you want. They're now on notice that they need to offer you a more "progressive" platform unless they want to take the risk of losing Yet Again.

It's a tradeoff to evaluate, not necessarily a no-brainer. Should progressives "settle" for Democrats; should conservatives "settle" for Republicans? Or should people work toward getting what they actually want? Voting for the republicrats possibly minimizes damage, but also leaves no hope for the future. Both approaches are "strategic" but have different strategic objectives.

Growing up..

[bigattichouse]

Growing up, my parents had the same answer to the two following questions: 1. How much money do you make? 2. Who are you voting for? The answer? None of your damn business.

Single issue votes are incorrect.

[AuralityKev]

I think a vote for or against someone because of a single view, be it abortion stance, environmental stance, or net neutrality stance is not exactly the best way to go about things. If you boil things down to one really narrow issue and vote solely on that you run the risk of voting in 9 evils for the 1 "good" idea you're passionate about.

Re:Pundit

[Sir.Cracked]

If you think ANY field is "unrelated" to politics, you arn't paying attention.

Re:Pundit

[darkvizier]

JaRule is likely endorsing whoever promises to legalize marijuana. Vint Cerf is likely endorsing the person that best represents his values. Since he is (presumably) a leader in technology and slashdot is a place for geeks, his opinion may well be relevant for the readers of this site.

Stick around for logical fallacies 101.

Re:Obama

[samkass]

Not wanting to start anything but I'm just curious who should be paying for the rape exams if not the people who are actually using them?

Okay, so... The state is using them, so the state should pay for them. It is criminal evidence, not a medical procedure. We don't make murder victim's estates pay for gathering murder evidence, either. It's in the general good to prosecute criminals, and it's been accepted that evidence gathering is the responsibility of the police and paid for by the state. Why rape should be any different is beyond me.

Re:Pundit

[Remloc]

[...]Obama's political spectrum and priorities far outweigh any relation an internet engineer could bring to the table. Seriously, if the fact that this dude is endorsing Obama ends up swaying a voter, then I think it can only be qualified as laughable -- not newsworthy.

The great unwashed masses hardly vote rationally. Witness the "P.U.M.A"s who were for Clinton but now plan to vote McCain (a diametric opposite) simply because Clinton losing hurt their feelings.

Re:Pundit

[imstanny]

JaRule is likely endorsing whoever promises to legalize marijuana. Vint Cerf is likely endorsing the person that best represents his values. Since he is (presumably) a leader in technology and slashdot is a place for geeks, his opinion may well be relevant for the readers of this site.Stick around for logical fallacies 101.

The problem is that this engineer's should be extolled for endorsing Obama based on the qualified reasoning and logic behind his endorsement, even if those reasons are strictly based on the internet and technology. Instead, he's being extolled for endorsing Obama based on the fact that he invented the internet. It makes for a catchy headline, but it's not logical at all.

i am voting for barack obama

[circletimessquare]

but that doesn't matter

what matters is i VOTE

anyone reading this who is not going to vote, i have nothing for you but the most withering disgust i can muster

there are many arguments as to why it is important for you to vote, but here's probably the best one i can think of right now:

2,912,790 to 2,912,253

it gave us the last 8 years of fail

in these numbers, are those responsible for our worst president ever

next election, don't let the source of our failure be you

Re:i am voting for barack obama

[Reality Master 101]

anyone reading this who is not going to vote, i have nothing for you but the most withering disgust i can muster

I don't want everyone to vote. I want everyone to be *informed*. And if that leads to voting, then fine. But if someone is not going to vote, then chances are they are not informed, and thus should stay home and leave the voting to people who actually know what they're voting for.

In other words, I respect the man who knows he isn't informed and thus stays home, more than I respect the uninformed man who votes out of guilt.

Re:Obama

[Big Nothing]

"who should be paying for the rape exams if not the people who are actually using them? [...] Why should that be the general taxpayer?"

I got 5 mod points, but I can't help but replying instead of using the points.

The mere fact that people that like you exist in the same world as me scares the living shit out of me. Whatever happened to having even the slightest touch of basic human compassion? Is the financial bottom line really THAT important to you, that you cannot fathom spending a few bucks on a fellow human being? Why should the tax payers pay for rape exams you ask? Because it's the fucking decent fucking thing to do, that's why!

GAWD! If I ever wished there was a way to stab someone in the face over the internet, now is the time. I hope you die from something painful.

Re:Obama

[kellyb9]

Voting for a candidate because they are either prolife or prochoice is the dumbest decision ever. In 8 years, none of that is going to change regardless of who's president. Social issues are meant to distract the American public from the things that are really important. They are used as rallying cries, but in the end, little will change with any one of them. Believe me, they will still be issues meant to rally the Republican and Democrat base in 8 years. You as an Obama supporter and a likely democrat should know this simply because you may have lost the election 4 years ago because of the prolife vote. Everytime a candidate appeals to his base, I lose a little bit of respect for them. I'd rather them speak their mind about issues that they can do something about.... but they rarely do.

Re:Pundit

[tgd]

That suggests both are in fact supporting whoever best represents the values they hold most important.

There's only a few reasons to endorse someone:

- you agree with them
- you are being payed by them
- you disagree that strongly with their opponent

Re:Obama

[EastCoastSurfer]

I agree! Where is my smaller government candidate? I don't think those actually exist anymore. I'll probably just end up writing in Ron Paul, not because I believe in everything he says and wants to do, but he's the only one who has shown he as ANY clue about the current financial mess we're in.

Re:Obama

[Uberbah]

The problem is his association with Bill Ayers a unapoligetic terrorist.

And the head of McCain's transition team used to lobby for Saddam Hussien. Playing the "associations" game is asinine, because there isn't a person on this planet that can't be connected to an unsavory person in one or two steps.

Re:Obama

[Chris Burke]

classic how your version of compassion only applies to certain situations.

Yes. I lack compassion for those who completely lack it themselves. If possible I would wish upon them, and only them, the world that they wish for, so they could see the cruelty of their ways without others suffering for it. Then maybe they would gain some compassion for others, and thus be deserving of some.

I don't see how this is hypocritical at all. I have compassion for the victim of rape. I have no compassion for someone who lacks compassion for the victim of rape.

Re:Pundit

[Mister Whirly]

No concrete differences? Well other than abortion rights, health care, tax strategy, foreign policies, education, and separation of church and state you are absolutely right - I can't see a difference.
To be honest, it would be hard to find a better example of two fundamentally diametrically opposed female politicians as Clinton and Palin.

A vote for Obama

[daveywest]

I typically vote republican, and I was a delegate to the republican county convention here in Nevada this year, but I've decided to vote Obama this year.

Maybe the man hasn't been in politics long enough, but there isn't any real dirt on the man. He really is a good honest man with a loving family. Contrast that with McCain. When McCain returned from Vietnam, both he and his (former) wife were vastly different people. No one would have blamed him for calling it quits on their marriage. Instead of caring for his crippled wife, he choose to live a fast life chasing any blond tail he could get his hands on. John McCain's moral compass points too far off true north for my vote. He even choose a running mate who is oblivious to her ethical shortcomings.

When I look at party platforms, I don't agree with a lot of Democratic ideals, but when I look at the man running for president, I see a man who has values that reflect my own.

Re:Marty Chalfie vote also for Obama

[ultranova]

The BIGGEST problem with Obama's stated goal of income redistribution is that it creates a sense of entitlement, the poor are ENTITLED to money, just because they don't have any.

The biggest problem with libertarians and other anti-tax people is that they feel they're ENTITLED to a quality of life above that of a lone subsistence farmer while simultaneously complaining when forced to support the society which makes such quality possible. Indeed, many rage against the government confiscating part of their income on the very Internet which was funded with those confiscated resources, completely ignoring the fact that they only have "income" because they live in an organized society that is kept running with that confiscated portion, and wondering why the general populace doesn't vote for them.

Please tell me, where am I wrong? Don't just mod me "troll", tell me, what right anyone has to take from anyone else, just because they want something?

It comes down to having two mutually exclusive choices:

1. Do not tax anyone. Consequently, all the resources - wealth - in the society are concentrated on a few hands, and the rest live a miserable life or outright starve, just like it was during the industrial revolution. Since starving people have nothing to lose but their chains, such conditions can and have led to bloody revolutions.
2. Tax people, therefore taking some of that concentrated wealth back from those who have it and redistribute it to the poor, thus preventing anyone from starving or getting truly desperate but having to put up with whining libertarians who'd rather "let them eat cake".

Most people consider the life and well-being of the majority of the citizens as well as the stability of the society to be more important than the right of the few to enjoy all the benefits of an organized society without paying any of the price. I know that that is shocking and stomach-turning to you, but try to understand that these people suffer from mental conditions called "empathy" and "thinking beyond your nose", so they really can't help it.

Tyranny of the mob isn't an excuse!

Tyranny of a few wealthy feudal lords isn't better, you know. Unless you happen to be one of them, of course. Do you perhaps fancy yourself John Galt ?