Internet Co-inventor Vint Cerf Endorses Obama 713
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.
Pundit (Score:0, Insightful)
Not like it matters much ... (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [npr.org]
Barr (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Growing up.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Single issue votes are incorrect. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Pundit (Score:5, Insightful)
If you think ANY field is "unrelated" to politics, you arn't paying attention.
Re:Barr (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Watch me get modded troll. (Score:3, Insightful)
No joke but I'm planning to write in Ron Paul. I don't like either of the major party candidates.
I like Obama's stance on Net Neutrality and the War. But I am pro-gun and anti-taxes and the Democrats historically as a party don't agree with my positions.
On the other hand, I've never cared for McCain (even in 2000). I don't like the statement he made during the primary campaign about leaving troops in Iraq for 100 years. He would be more likely to support my gun and tax positions but I think it would pretty much end there. He's not a true fiscal conservative nor does he seem to be a defender of individual liberties and I believe we'd get another 4 years of intrusive huge government.
I've been considering voting for Bob Barr but I think the Ron Paul write-in sends a better message.
Re:Pundit (Score:3, Insightful)
Following this logic would disqualify nearly every person in the United States. This is why we have the electoral college IMO.
Why Obama has to get mad for us to win (Score:2, Insightful)
"Us" being the news media. [today.com] Quite simply, he needs to create a more compelling narrative on change and get angry about something. Our ratings depend on it. Attack ads! Push polls! We need material!
We need the argument that this is an election with two choices - not just one popular dynamic guy and one old past-it guy. That's not a compelling media narrative!
Obama's 2:1 advantage in the Electoral College is far too confusing for our viewers. We need to re-run polls until we get one with a 1% change, never mind the 3% error margin. It's sooo close! Experts say it's a wake-up call! Better keep your eyes glued to the screen! Oh my goodness!
If Obama can just pull ahead between now and November 4, he may become President Barack Obama ... Or not! Who knows? You need to keep watching! Right here! Stay tuned!
Re:Barr (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Pundit (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem with charging women up to 1200 dollars for a rape exam is that it discourages legitimate claims.
I actually like your idea of how to fix this, but it'll never work. There's too much money involved for common sense to be useful.
Also, wrt your comment "I'm not out raping people and I don't feel that I should have to foot any portion of the bill, through my tax dollars." People who don't have kids in school still pay that part of the tax. The whole reason we have taxes beyond what is necessary to run a skeletal government is to provide for the public good - education, criminal justice, things like that.
I just had another thought of how to get the money back. Let's say 1 out of 10 rapists is caught. That's 12000 dollars that someone has to pay - make the one rapist pay it. Basically, charge them to make up for however much is being spent without result. And, in cases of women crying 'wolf' (claiming rape when it didn't happen) charge the women who make false claims.
Re:Obama (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
[...]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 (Score:3, Insightful)
The only people that have to worry are those greedy bastards who only care about profit, efficiency, and getting good, reliable workers for their money. You don't need an expert to build a bridge - the labor force is the one that does all the work, after all.
[/sarcasm]
I would no sooner vote for McCain, either. They both would sooner hang your rights in effigy than make a promise that reality says can be kept.
Re:Pundit (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [state.fl.us]
it gave us the last 8 years of fail
in these numbers, are those responsible for our worst president ever [state.fl.us]
next election, don't let the source of our failure be you
Advice (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Obama (Score:5, Insightful)
"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:Barr (Score:1, Insightful)
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.
What makes you think they would have went to Gore or Kerry? That's just a Democratic excuse for having shitty candidates. Gore really doesn't want to be President and never has. My proof? He's following his passions and really starting to shine.
I don't like McCain nor Obama. I'm voting third party. If it weren't for Barr, I wouldn't be voting.
Re:Pundit (Score:3, Insightful)
This is why we have the electoral college IMO.
And look at the fine job it has done for you.
Re:Obama (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:McCain = Endless War. (Score:2, Insightful)
The upside of Endless War is that the more gullible of our rural tax-consuming citizens will offer their lives to a government that doesn't care about them.
The downside is the cost, death and destruction.
But given the 'salt of the earth' I've been hearing at McCain/Palin rallies...which is the lesser of the two weevils?
"rural tax-consuming" How do you figure that the rural areas consume more taxes?
Re:Obama (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah! And I think dead people should pay for their own autopsies. After all, I didn't kill them.
Re:Single issue votes are incorrect. (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree with your stance - normally. However, for the congressional elections this time around I am specifically voting *against* all candidates who voted *for* the bailout. I don't care who their opponent is.
Re:Pundit (Score:3, Insightful)
Which, for some strange reason, comes -after- Logical Fallacies 201.
If you assumed otherwise, you need to repeat Logical Fallacies 201.
Re:Barr (Score:4, Insightful)
There are plenty of other reasons why Gore lost. Blaming voting for a third party candidate is pretty short-sided. Why not blame the media for not giving enough TV time to Pat Buchanan who would have taken votes away from Bush?
Bush ran on a completely different platform than what he actually did while in office. How do you know that Gore wouldn't have done the same thing?
If Bush would have implemented a lot of what he talked about when he campaigned we wouldn't be in the situation we are now. However, you can say that about almost every President elected in the last century.
To stay on topic, if you think you're going to get real net neutrality with Joe Biden as VP you're absolutely nuts!
Re:Pundit (Score:5, Insightful)
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:and that's important because...? (Score:3, Insightful)
So Cerf having invented something of value, years ago, makes him a reliable commentator on things political?
No, Cerf having invented something that has grown beyond prediction while still using most of the same protocols, tells me that he is a smart guy and probably knows what he is talking about when it comes to the internet. I would not simply trust his economic ideas or his gardening tips.
This cuts to the core of our problems: responsible exercise of the franchise can't be left to the uninformed. I'm not speaking of Cerf, but of those who would change their minds simply because of his -- or any other -- endorsemen
Could not agree more with you on that one. The USA political system together with the biased media and the fake-isolationist attitude are almost guaranteed to lead to abismal results when it comes to voting capable people into offices. Simply put: US citizens are actively kept stupid.
Re:Obama (Score:5, Insightful)
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:i am voting for barack obama (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:2, Insightful)
The taxpayer pays for every other police procedure. If your house is burgled they take fingerprints, etc and they don't charge you for that. That's what the police are *FOR*. That's what we pay taxes *FOR*.
Think about that. Not one other police procedure involves the police saying to the victim "well, we can investigate, but it'll cost you". Not one. You get burgled, carjacked, mugged, assaulted, whatever and the police investigate and don't bill you a penny. What possible reason could there be for making rape the single exception to that rule?
I can think of two 1) those supporting this hate rape victims and want to make them suffer more than they already have, or 2) those supporting this want to make it even more difficult than it already is for women to report rapes and prosecutors to get convictions in rape cases.
McCain has voted against a federal bill mandating that rape exams be taxpayer funded (exactly like every other part of police work) every time the measure has come up. Under Palin Wasilla was the only city in Alaska to charge rape victims (but not the victims of any other type of crime) to investigate; the state of Alaska wound up passing a law banning the practice statewide for no reason but to force Palin to stop charging rape victims (but not the victims of any other crime) for the investigation.
But, before you go complaining about what a horrible thing it is to charge the taxpayers for rape investigations, remember that we charge the taxpayers for every other sort of investigation. Why would you get upset about the taxpayer footing the bill for rape investigation if you aren't similarly upset about the taxpayer footing the bill for murder investigation, or burglary investigation, or every other bit of work the police do?
Re:Barr (Score:2, Insightful)
This is the problem with the current plurality voting system, and until you change the voting system there will always be this spoiler effect. Sometimes it helps your candidate and sometimes it hurts your candidate, but it's always wrong to blame the thirdparty candidate for a major candidate's win or loss. Many of those Nader voters probably wouldn't have voted for either candidate had Nader not run, but even if 100% of them would have voted for Gore or Kerry, it is still not Nader's fault that they lost.
Using approval or range voting, this wouldn't even be an issue, which is why I hate it when democrats or republicans blame a spoiler candidate for their loss, but will never talk about changing the voting system to make it more fair for everyone.
Re:Barr (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
While we're playing political fantasy - wouldn't it have been great if the Democrats could have produced candidates that could win? Even against a second-term George W.?
I know its probably just crazy talk but perhaps part of the reason we ended up with "Bushy shitness" is because what the Democrats were peddling seemed like just a different mixture of the same shit.
Re:Barr (Score:3, Insightful)
Third party candidates appeal to a lot of people; it's just that there's not enough momentum to get them into office. Since we *know* we won't get our choice (I like Nader, but am voting for Obama because I very definitely DO NOT want McCain). It's bullshit, yes, but that's the way things are right now.
No Offense to Obama... (Score:2, Insightful)
He's so much into change, he happens to change his stance on issues weekly. I can see that he's a smooth talker, but it's hard for me to rally behind anyone whose convictions waffle around seemingly at random.
What happens if he is elected and then some lobbyist comes along with an agenda, convinces Obama that net neutrality is the devil, and all of a sudden Obama reneges?
The short answer? I'll believe it when I see it.
Re:Watch me get modded troll. (Score:1, Insightful)
The problem with being anti-taxes, is that it's precisely the reason your country is so much in debt..
So, what would you rather have - no debt or no taxes...???
(Bush's tax cuts are the primary reason, (though not the only reason), the US national debt has ballooned btw).
Re:Obama (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Obama (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Not like it matters much ... (Score:4, Insightful)
The "Beer caucus" is the stupidest thing I've ever seen in relation to choosing a president. I remember reading an article about who'd be the better man to have a beer with, Bush or Al Gore (back in the 2000 elections) and everyone agreed Bush was the better, more charismatic man.
Fat lot of good that did you.
Re:Barr (Score:1, Insightful)
Well then they should freaking vote for a third party candidate! Voting 3rd party can sometimes result in your second-choice candidate losing the election, but it still serves a useful function: by punishing losing party and saying "Hey! Be more like this other guy".
As an example, perhaps the best way to force a major party to pick up some libertarian ideas is to force their candidates to lose: http://blogs.columbiatribune.com/politics/2006/12/cato_libertarians_may_have_cos.html [columbiatribune.com]
If you never vote your ideals, how can you expect parties to compete for your vote?
Re:Obama (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Obama (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm ambivalent towards dogs. I think any dog that attacks a person (yes, without justification) twice should be put down and their owner charged with assault. Far better to put the dog down the first time, or at least keep it penned such that it can NEVER happen again.
I'm tolerant towards other humans. I think people who can't see the value of stopping criminals who probably won't target them (not too many rapists targeting males, and the odds are the OP was male) deserve to be called down in public, and I, too, hope they suffer something tragic and very personal in the (very faint) hope that they gain enlightenment.
Re:Not like it matters much ... (Score:5, Insightful)
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. [sefora.org] 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.
Re:No Offense to Obama... (Score:4, Insightful)
That's a risk with either candidate.
However Obama seems to understand science and technology, and has advisers.
McCain and Palin are anti science.
Who do you think is going to understand that issue better?
Re:Barr (Score:2, Insightful)
I feel your fear, and I think Obama would make a far superior President, no doubt. I wouldn't dissuade you from voting for him by any means. But for me, personally, there's something just not cricket about voting for someone because the other guy is worse. It's a small thing, but it speaks volumes about who we are as a culture, and in a not-so-grandiose way, I'm deciding to make my small stand.
I'll appreciate anyone who takes the high road and doesn't bash my candidate because I won't vote for theirs.
a question for Americans (Score:1, Insightful)
Why do you Americans vote on what politicians say they will do, rather than on a track record of what they have actually done?
Is it common, in America, to be able to walk up to some stranger and have them agree in writing that they will be ruled by you for four years? And all you have to do in return is give them an oral, unenforceable promise that you will do various things that they like the sound of? I come from a former Soviet bloc country and I'd laugh if someone tried that to me, whether a stranger in the street or a face on the television - unless, perhaps, they'd shown themselves to act as they speak. With conviction and consistency. For decades.
Re:Not like it matters much ... (Score:4, Insightful)
here isn't a female alive who would sleep with that old fool.
Allow me to quote Henry Kissinger.
"Power is the ultimate aphrodesiac".
Disclaimer: I am not female.
Re:Obama (Score:3, Insightful)
Because smaller government for the sake of smaller government
There are actual principles of which the effect is a government smaller than the one now. For example, the only proper, justifiable role for the government is to support and uphold individual rights. A government that restricted itself to that would be much smaller than the one now. Saying I am "for small government" is just a shorthand reference to this principle.
Re:Barr (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Yeah, and I was one of those Nader voters in a swing state, saying "there's no difference between the candidates", and then spent the next eight years saying "Dear Universe, I'm sorry, stop showing me how wrong I was I learned my lesson!" I see the value of strategic votes, and if I was still in a swing state in 04 I would have voted for Kerry even though I thought he was a colossal douche. I wasn't, so I voted for Badnarik because screw the two-party system and the electoral college that enforces it by making my vote useless. Because believe me, I'm with you 100% that feeling able to meaningfully vote third part would be fantastic, and not being able to is a huge detriment to our country.
That said, this time, I'm voting for Obama because I actually want him to be President. I like his ideas, I like him, I think he will do a good job, and I think he will bring about change. Nice, reasonable, positive change. Not the ideal perfect change that I want, not by a longshot, no sir. But you know what? Another lesson I learned is that these super-idealistic never-compromise candidates and their followers who basically want to tear down the system and rebuild it from scratch are fools who won't accomplish anything. The only people of that type who get things done are essentially revolutionaries, not elected political officials, and well I'm hoping that we aren't going to need a revolution, cus they aren't fun.
Do you think President Nader would be able to stop globalization and corporatism? Do you think President Paul would be able to tear down all government intrusion into life and business? No! Because there is no possible President you could elect on November 4th who wouldn't have to deal with our current political system, and neither of those candidates would be able to change the inertia or deal with the compromises that would have to be made to convince those 500-some-odd politicians to go along. So out of all the candidates, who do I best believe will be able to work with that system in order to enact positive change, even bearing as it would the screwed up dysfunctional hallmarks of that system? Barack Obama. Right now, to me, "change I can believe in" means "change that actually has a chance of being accomplished".
And I still see this as an aspect of the same optimism that led me to vote Nader in 2000. Because I also believe that reasonable, achievable change can lead to more reasonable, achievable change, and a better country overall. So that's me.
Re:Watch me get modded troll. (Score:3, Insightful)
Let me ask you a question. How long have we had troops in Japan? How much longer do you think we will continue to have troops in Japan? I'm guessing a long time.
If you hold the "100 years" comment against McCain you are seriously lacking in critical thinking skills.
Re:Obama (Score:4, Insightful)
this one has some merit, though Palin's precise role is unclear...
Palin had been the mayor of Wasilla for four years at the time, and a local paper reported that the Wasilla police chief, Charlie Fannon, defended the practice, saying he had billed women and their insurance companies for these tests rather than placing a "burden" on taxpayers.
I'd say that SOMEONE made the victims pay. Palin herself, personally, obviously didn't hand someone the bills. The police chief that she hired didn't personally do it either, I'm sure. Policy is still policy. You can delegate authority, but not responsibility.
Re:Obama (Score:3, Insightful)
I guess they are mistaken: Did Sarah Palin make rape victims pay...?
Your link at best does nothing to dispel the rumour.
Fine, so Palin didn't push the policy personally... it was instead done by Charlie Fannon, her handpicked appointee [salon.com].
Given that she appointed him and was his superior, it's at least plausible that she provided some direction on this issue. And your factcheck link provides no evidence demonstrating she did not intervene.
Scientists are political animals, science isn't (Score:3, Insightful)
> Science is all about the truth.
Except most scientists aren't. Remember your basic RAH, "Most scientists are button sorters and bottle washers." And science today is more politicized than at any point in history. Sorry, the same new deal nostrums delivered by some twit in a lab coat don't do it for me.
Scientists are people too, and subject to all the defects that come with it. Plus the all too common defect of thinking expertise in a narror area is applicable to topics far outside. Mr. Cerf is a good tech guy, but if he is actually voting based purely on net neutrality (which I don't believe for a femtosecond) he is a bigger fool than the single issue pro lifers.
> As Colbert said, they make facts based on decisions.
You mean like politicized scientists do? AIDS is going to break out into the general population any day now, you just wait! Breand name scientists told us that fairly tale back in the 1980s when you could at least argue they were just being cautious but they haven't stopped to this day to flog that story to keep the FUD levels up and keep the funding flowing. The best science available tells us the population of the polar bear has never been higher, but 'scientists' insisted it be classified as threatened for purely political reasons having nothing whatsoever with the polar bear. Riddle me this; if the polar bear is threatened by having record population what ovjective criteria will be used to determine it is no longer threatened? Yea, now the picture comes into focus.
> So we hear people saying that science is just another religion, and they say that like they really believe it.
Science by itself isn't a religion, but too many scientists seem to believe it is. Listen, science can't answer any of the important questions, life the universe and everything, WHY? etc. By definition it can't probe beyond the big bang, as far as science is conserned, beyond here be dragons is as good an answer any. It can't answer a single moral question. So why do scientists think otherwise? Why do they think being 'men of science' makes them qualified to expound of matters their training has left them totally unequipped to deal with? Once you try to extend 'science' to a total worldview that offers answers to "why" you have a religion. Religions don't have to have a "God" you know.
> 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.
By suppressed you mean no government funding. Kinda says volumes about your world view now doesn't it. Private entities are unfettered in what they can do in this area, and the lack of federal funding for embyronic stem cell research has driven a multitude of new interesting options. You might not have a moral problem with it but millions and millions of taxpayers did. You might believe they are all ignorant hicks but in our Republic they do still get a vote. It would be just as wrong to seize their money and use it for things they consider an abomination than it would be to seize yours to build churches. You inability to see that makes you unfit to hold any public office.
Now since this topic is about our choices, here's mine:
McCain/Palin with a clothspin on my nose. But no money. Bad Republican, no check. Not only do I have the usual Republican objections to McCain for his RINO traits, McCain Feingold is the deal breaker for me. Void the 1st Amendment and I remember it forever. If he needed to atone for his minor role in the Keating Five he could have resigned or hell, go out back and shoot yerself if that is what ya gotta do but damned if I can see how totally violating one's Oath of Office redeems your Honor. So I can never vote FOR McCain.
Even though I have an unbroken record of voting for Republicans going back to Reagan in '84 I would have considered a Democrat vs McCain had they picked a sensible one. But the progression isn't promising now is it. Arkansas Horndog, Green Pope, Traitor and
Re:Pundit (Score:4, Insightful)
Bingo. Anyone who will vote for somebody based on their skin color or gender (or any other criteria the person has zero control over) isn't using their brain.
That's assuming you feel there is an actual concrete difference between the candidates. You really can't judge based on what they say because neither actually says very much once you get past the marketing speak and both lie on a regular basis. You can't really judge by their records because every bill they vote on is really a bunch of separate bills bundled together.
Given the above, I could certainly understand a black person reasoning that having a strong and well educated black man as President might be more valuable as a role model for their kids than any minor policy differences that might exist, especially after Congress has their say.
Re:Barr (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Pundit (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
It comes down to having two mutually exclusive choices:
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 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 ?
Re:Scientists are political animals, science isn't (Score:3, Insightful)
Good thing I judge a president by how well they can manipulate me then. WOO PALIN.
Idiots out there using "issues" and "philosophies" to make decisions.
Re:Obama (Score:3, Insightful)
Well that explains it. You support small government because it's "proper".
I could explain it in much more detail than this, if you'd like. You could also read the Constitution, early Founding Fathers, and Locke, for further guidance.
And anyone who disagrees with you is automatically giving everyone a free lunch and destroying bridges.
They are violating rights, yes.
Did you ever think about the consequences of your ideology? Like, what might happen if someone were batty enough to go out and implement it?
You've characterized it as "batty" but have not shown that your characterization is correct. Either provide an actual argument, rationale, or evidence to support your claim, or drop the label.
Re:Scientists are political animals, science isn't (Score:2, Insightful)
This comment being rated as "5 Insightful" makes me that think no one actually tried to read this wall of text.
>Mr. Cerf is a good tech guy, but if he is actually voting based purely on net neutrality (which I don't believe for a femtosecond) he is a bigger fool than the single issue pro lifers.
You seem to be a single issue person yourself, and that issue is "who is the Republican candidate?"
>AIDS is going to break out into the general population any day now, you just wait!
You are looking at today's infection rate after all of the work that has been done to inform the public. Secondly, break out into the general population? Are you still operating under the assumption that the HIV virus cares if you're gay or a junkie? You don't have a point.
>Riddle me this; if the polar bear is threatened by having record population what ovjective criteria will be used to determine it is no longer threatened? Yea, now the picture comes into focus.
Yes, the focus should be on birth rates and the ability to sustain a population. Once again, you have no point.
>Listen, science can't answer any of the important questions, life the universe and everything, WHY?
There's a lot that science can't explain yet, but only because we have not discovered the answer. By the way, the Earth is round and we orbit the Sun.
>It can't answer a single moral question.
Incorrect, unwarranted homicide is not beneficial to the general population, and there are scientific explanations for that. I think that answers the moral question of why killing is wrong. Also, science identifies incest as being dangerous to the gene pool, the same way many cultures have viewed it as being dangerous to society.
>Do have high hopes for Palin, even after a bumpy start on the national stage. Her basic political skills are awesome, her political instincts are sound. Level her up a bit and she will be great as the first female POTUS.
From this I can conclude that you are in fact an idiot. You are not an idiot because Palin is an idiot. Rather, you are an idiot because you have deemed someone fit for the highest office in the USA after having heard about them only a month and a half ago. Trust me, you had no idea who she was before that. That is why you are an idiot.
>Manchurian Candidate
I don't appreciate you talking about John McCain that way. He is a legitimate war hero, making baseless claims about his mental health is inappropriate.
Re:Scientists are political animals, science isn't (Score:2, Insightful)
Not sure where you find your scientists, but most of the ones I know (including the GF who is a biologist) are more concerned with find out why something works the way it does than pushing any particular agenda. Nor do any of them view science as a religion, though the way they state their findings maybe sounds a slightly religious at times. It's as hard to argue against facts as it is to argue the absence of god to a minister. They view it as a learning process and a discovery process.
The reason why it becomes political is that the the politicians, and/or companies with something to lose, make it that way. Science is an inherently neutral pursuit as I stated above: Why does this work this way? The shining example of this is global warming. It's obviously pretty damning to the petroleum and coal industries so what did they do? They setup a bunch of astroturf style institutes and non-profits, staffed them with a bunch of petrol-geologists and lobbyists, and started pointing at them saying the climatologists in the world have it all wrong. Do a little googling and you'll be able to find the links.
Another great example of this is smoking. The tobacco companies did the same thing. They introduced a bunch of bogus "scientific" reports that muddied up the water so much nothing was done about it for way too many years.
Scientist want to figure out why the ball is rolling down the hill. Politicians want to convince you it's actually rolling up.
I'm voting for Obama all the way. I'd rather live in a free society where one can speak their mind and have the freedom to pursue their dreams, than live in a republican authoritarian system with religious whips and forced communist style patriotism.