
Cosmos: debuts tonight 9/8c on Fox - nairteashop
http://www.cosmosontv.com/
======
wozniacki
President Obama is expected to introduce the series!

[http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/tv/showtracker/la-et-
ms...](http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/tv/showtracker/la-et-ms-cosmos-
fox-president-obama-seth-macfarlane-
tyson-20140308,0,5265363.story#axzz2vQZjk5hk)

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.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=da3G2ezt9R0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=da3G2ezt9R0)

------
geetee
I really hope this isn't an overproduced mess. I look at how Fox makes Gordon
Ramsey look like the ultimate asshole, and hope it doesn't happen to Tyson.

~~~
maxerickson
Ramsey makes it pretty easy.

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.

------
hypertexthero
Good news, but please [do watch the original
series]([http://hypertexthero.com/logbook/2014/03/cosmos/](http://hypertexthero.com/logbook/2014/03/cosmos/))
if you haven't yet.

------
brg
Reading the description of today's episodes, they are revisiting the Cosmic
Calendar and discussing the immense age of the universe. However this was also
the first episode of Sagan's Cosmos. Is this a shot for shot remake with
better graphics? Or is this something new and only inspired by the previous
show?

------
mdf
For those of you who don't know what 9/8c means (I didn't), it's 21:00 Eastern
Time or 20:00 Central Time.

------
javert
Apparently Obama is giving an introduction.

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.

~~~
mikhailt
A breach of integrity? What the F*$)?

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.

~~~
javert
> we should not be holding any opinions nor should we bringing up the
> accusation that this is a politicization of science.

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.

~~~
mikhailt
I'm not giving anybody any benefits of the doubt nor am I giving any
conclusion about anything. As a person of science, I do not judge or make any
conclusion without actually trying it myself in person.

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.

~~~
javert
If it were Pat Robertson (evangelical Christian leader) introducting the show,
would you say the same thing? What if it were Hitler? It would not matter if
either of those figures appeared to perfectly espoused science for a few
minutes; it does not erase who they are.

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.

~~~
mikhailt
Nice to see Godwin's law kicking in.

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.

~~~
maxerickson
Just to complete the fun circle, in "Contact", Sagan used the footage of
Hitler welcoming the world to the Olympics (something he would have been asked
to do because of his position in Germany at the time...).

------
madengr
Can the faux news veiwership handle that the earth is not 6000 years old? Or
is this the work of the devil?

