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 ...

[SoundGuyNoise]

John McCain is probably a mean drunk.

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.

def

[jDeepbeep]

I was under the impression that neither candidate has *defined* what they mean by NN. If either has defined it well and I've missed it, let me know. Until then, meh.

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.

It's Exposure to One Side that Causes Me to Vote

[eldavojohn]

I live in Virginia in the Washington D.C. metro area. I've been exposed to avid fans from both sides and have decided I won't be voting for McCain. Why? Read the fifth paragraph down in this article to get an idea of what one sometimes has to deal with. And all I need to do is peruse factcheck.org to see who's lying about what.

Call me stupid & naive for desiring a non-manipulative president but I've been nonplussed with the McCain campaign (and Fox News for that matter). Both candidates twisted each others words but I haven't been exposed to many negative ads against McCain. I wish I didn't have to vote for either of them, we'll still be at war four years from now regardless of who wins--it's probably just a matter of how many countries we'll be at war with.

Re:Pundit

[Sir.Cracked]

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

Florida voter:

[philspear]

I really liked the last 8 years of Bush rule, so I'm going to vote for Nader again.

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: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

[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

[Colonel Korn]

One of McCain's close friends is G Gordon Liddy (documented a bit on Wikipedia), who McCain claims to admire. This is after Liddy masterminded Watergate, planned assassinations of anti-Republican politicians for Nixon, the firebombing of political enemies, and advocated the murder of federal agents. The association between McCain and Liddy is much closer than the one between Obama and Ayers, includes Liddy fund raising for McCain, and Liddy is much worse of a terrorist than Ayers ever was.

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.