Cosmos: debuts tonight 9/8c on Fox
cosmosontv.com
cosmosontv.com
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/tv/showtracker/la-et-ms...
Neil deGrasse Tyson talks about his redux of the famous Carl Sagan series and why science and science literacy matter in a democracy, with Bill Moyers on Moyers & Company.
I don't think Tyson really needs the project, and at least Seth MacFarlane (one of the producers) is coming at it from a perspective of really having enjoyed Sagan's work.
Tyson is joyously authentic as his natural self.
Tyson on Carl Sagan's influence, on his formative years
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeqrN3Bfro8
Tyson Defending the U.S. Space Program and the innovation it birthed, on Real Time with Bill Maher.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAXPyAafQvA
Tyson on the dysfunction of the U.S. Congress
As a scientist, I completely reject this politicization of science.
I do not agree that the Democrats are a pro-science, pro-reason party and I reject their attempt to portray themselves as such by latching on to scientists.
I will not be tuning in. I don't know who is producing this, but involving the President is a breach of integrity.
As a science enthusiast, I completely accept this.
I don't care if the president is Republican or Democrat; I don't care if this is Obama just trying to improve his images; I don't care about the politics of this; introducing this program is good for science education.
A breach of integrity? You're talking like the DNC produced the show. At worst they reached out to FOX and offered TV time with the President, which FOX tripped over themselves to agree to. Why can't this just be the President recognizing that our science literacy is falling and offering a small gesture to increase science awareness by introducing the most anticipated science TV program of all time?
It seems a lot like you care more about the politics than how this helps science education.
It's just the president introducing the show, we don't know what he plans to say but until we do, we should not be holding any opinions nor should we bringing up the accusation that this is a politicization of science.
IMO, you have offended yourself as a scientist by being closed minded and accusing/assuming crap without analyzing the facts first.
How many years of this president would it take before you accumulated enough evidence to reach a conclusion about him?
To give him the benefit of the doubt after this many years is simply willful ignorance.
I don't care about the president. This whole thing is about a potential important science show and you're attacking it because of some few minutes of introduction from the most important man in the country. The president may be doing the show a favor to bring in more viewers. Without viewers, the show will fail.
The president giving the introduction HAS NO IMPACT of how I'm going to feel about the actual show itself. You know why? Because I'll base my opinion AFTER I watch it, NOT BEFORE.
You're accusing the show of lacking of integrity and won't watch it because some guy is introducing the show, rather than actually watching the show first and then come up with your own opinion, which will then be more of a solid foundation.
If the show and the introduction made me feel like it was bastardized by politics, then I will be happy with agree with you. I just can't agree with you without watching this in the first place.
The same is true for Obama. This is a man who is adamantly and explicitly opposed to the founding principles of America, including legislative and constitutional restraint on his power (see his "selective enforcement" of Obamacare, for example). This is a man who is creating a two-tiered healthcare system: one for the very rich and one for everyone else. This is a man who blocked the Keystone pipeline. (Can someone be pro-science but against the industrial development and improvement of the country? Answer: No.) And I could go on and on.
He is extremely politicized, literally 1/2 of the country hates living under his rule, and he has no business being allowed anywhere near science.
I wouldn't care if Pat Robertson introduced the show, that'd hurt him more than the show since he'd be effectively promoting a science show.
In fact, I hated Bush but I still wouldn't bash the show for asking him of the introduction.
I wouldn't make any judgments until I watch both first. There are always at least two sides to the same story and I learnt from experience not to rush to any judgements until afterward.
By the way, Hitler? That's just a quick way to lose the argument.
Unclench and just be happy that scientific wonder is getting some time in the media spotlight for once. It would even be okay if George Bush had an opportunity to do this during his presidency. Unfortunately, the show wasn't airing at the time.
And would you also call me "biased" for claiming that the Earth orbits the Sun, not the other way around?
> Unclench and just be happy that scientific wonder is getting some time in the media spotlight for once.
No, Obama is getting time in front of the spotlight that ought to be instead shining on science.
Yeah, very rational indeed...
So as far as I can tell, your attempt to take the moral high ground here is pure pretense.
You're doing exactly what you're against of, and you don't even notice it.
If that's not obvious I don't know what else is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seth_MacFarlane#Political_views
Ooga Booga!
That said, I'm not sure what the "institution" you are referring to is, that word could refer to several different things in this context.
President Obama is a human being who happens to like science. He also was involved in an episode of Mythbusters about a myth he'd like the guys to test and I thought it was awesome. Jamie actually was honored to do it and you could see it in his face.