Let me say that one of the signs of a nation in distress and meltdown mode insanity is the inability to appreciate irony. This is especially so in the media, and need I emphasize before launching into my jeremiad that FOX - the Murdoch channel- has been the beneficiary of airing COSMOS with Neil deGrasse Tyson mainly thanks to the effort of Seth MacFarlane. Murdoch and the FOXites ought to be celebrating the proud accomplishment of having someone like Tyson featured on a premier show that has gained much acclaim - while adding megabytes of badly needed insight and knowledge to the overly parochial American cranium.
So why on Earth would the same network feature a congenital asshole for a guest, who dumps all over Cosmos and its host? I am referring to Gavin McInnes who on Tuesday night, spewed a hateful rant about Neil deGrasse Tyson. McInnes, btw has a sordid history of racist, homophobic and misogynistic comments. So his knuckle-dragging preceded him right into a FOX News segment in which he tried to pick apart an interview of Tyson done by MSNBC 'ALL IN' host Chris Hayes.
In the interview, which I have seen and remains on my DVR list, Tyson joked about his “greatest fear” being that intelligent life would steer clear of making contact with Earth because of the signals we unwittingly put out into space — including past TV and radio programs. Interestingly, this could pass for the corollary of a point I made more than 36 years ago in an article ('We Are Not Alone' ) published in the Barbados NATION, e.g.
Therein I suggested that if humans had any residual smarts at all they would take care to conceal their radio presence rather than announce it, because "too many of our species are still too stupid, too regressed."
Anyway, after playing a clip of the interview, FOX host Greg Gutfeld started the Tyson bashing. Again, let's bear in mind that 'COSMOS' airs on the FOX network.
.
“I don’t know what’s worse: him ragging on some classic American television, or Christopher Hayes laughing, giggling, chortling over really bad jokes,”
Which, if anyone actually watches the Hayes' interview, will see that Gutfield's take is largely based on an over active imagination - because I didn't see any "giggling, laughing or chortling". I did see a brief chuckle, but any sentient person watching with more than two neurons would have reacted the same way.
And then, as we've seen before, there is the qualifications and credentials mocking. Note here that the Fox homer Gutfeld likely couldn't even pass a basic college physics course (not even the calculus variety) and yet he has the chutzpah to question Tyson as an astrophysicist, chirping:
"Astrophysicist — yeah right!”
This dismissal directed at a man who has degrees from Harvard (B.A. Physics), the University of Texas (M.A. Astrophysics) and Columbia (Ph.D. Astrophysics) and currently runs the Hayden Planetarium.
Gutfeld then turned to McInnes, a member of the panel, for his opinion. What burped out of his mouth was less opinion and more flatus:
“I hate this guy!I remember hearing Chris Hardwick on a podcast talk about Neil deGrasse Tyson and he was just salivating. White liberal nerds love this guy so much, he could defecate on them like Martin Bashir’s fantasies and they would dance in the streets.”
Huh?! As your supremo example of a "white, liberal nerd" let me correct this imbecile by noting that I have had my major differences with Tyson and have expressed them from time to time on this blog, e.g.
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2010/03/neil-degrasse-tyson-is-wrong-about.html
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/10/neil-degrasse-tyson-has-too-much-time.html
And I also criticized him for giving way too much slack to creationists in one interview, noting (March 23):
"This (creationist equal time) kerfuffle seemingly has even driven Neil deGrasse Tyson into making capitulatory statements which Carl Sagan never would have volunteered in a million years. On WNYC’s Brian Lehrer show, Tyson said that there are "plenty of scientists who pray to a god, and are fully functioning” because they "don’t use religious text as scientific evidence."
This marks a valiant effort to placate the fundies, but alas is disingenuous. There are not "plenty of scientists who pray to any god". Pew Religious Forum surveys conducted since 2000 have in fact shown that the majority (60-70 percent) of physical scientists are atheistic or at least agnostic. They acknowledge no personal deity. And hence, Tyson didn't have to offer this palliative at all. Yes, I have known a few who are religious, and it is true they don't invoke their religion to advance their science. But on the other hand, I am aware of those who have, because it's allowed them to get gigs they otherwise couldn't - because of too much competition in the mainstream. Hence, they instead carved out a creationist 'niche' and were accepted by one creationist (or ID) outfit or another, whether Discovery Institute, Answers in Genesis, The Creation Science Institute or whatever.
Tyson also went on to state:
"The issue there is not religion versus non-religion, or religion versus science. The issue is ideas that are different versus dogma."
This is a noble effort to be diplomatic but it simply doesn't work, doesn't compute. Science - based on naturalism and Materialism - is counterpoised to ANY system based on supernaturalism. It's like trying to mix oil and water. It is a fool's errand."
.
“I don’t know what’s worse: him ragging on some classic American television, or Christopher Hayes laughing, giggling, chortling over really bad jokes,”
Which, if anyone actually watches the Hayes' interview, will see that Gutfield's take is largely based on an over active imagination - because I didn't see any "giggling, laughing or chortling". I did see a brief chuckle, but any sentient person watching with more than two neurons would have reacted the same way.
And then, as we've seen before, there is the qualifications and credentials mocking. Note here that the Fox homer Gutfeld likely couldn't even pass a basic college physics course (not even the calculus variety) and yet he has the chutzpah to question Tyson as an astrophysicist, chirping:
"Astrophysicist — yeah right!”
This dismissal directed at a man who has degrees from Harvard (B.A. Physics), the University of Texas (M.A. Astrophysics) and Columbia (Ph.D. Astrophysics) and currently runs the Hayden Planetarium.
Gutfeld then turned to McInnes, a member of the panel, for his opinion. What burped out of his mouth was less opinion and more flatus:
“I hate this guy!I remember hearing Chris Hardwick on a podcast talk about Neil deGrasse Tyson and he was just salivating. White liberal nerds love this guy so much, he could defecate on them like Martin Bashir’s fantasies and they would dance in the streets.”
Huh?! As your supremo example of a "white, liberal nerd" let me correct this imbecile by noting that I have had my major differences with Tyson and have expressed them from time to time on this blog, e.g.
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2010/03/neil-degrasse-tyson-is-wrong-about.html
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/10/neil-degrasse-tyson-has-too-much-time.html
And I also criticized him for giving way too much slack to creationists in one interview, noting (March 23):
"This (creationist equal time) kerfuffle seemingly has even driven Neil deGrasse Tyson into making capitulatory statements which Carl Sagan never would have volunteered in a million years. On WNYC’s Brian Lehrer show, Tyson said that there are "plenty of scientists who pray to a god, and are fully functioning” because they "don’t use religious text as scientific evidence."
This marks a valiant effort to placate the fundies, but alas is disingenuous. There are not "plenty of scientists who pray to any god". Pew Religious Forum surveys conducted since 2000 have in fact shown that the majority (60-70 percent) of physical scientists are atheistic or at least agnostic. They acknowledge no personal deity. And hence, Tyson didn't have to offer this palliative at all. Yes, I have known a few who are religious, and it is true they don't invoke their religion to advance their science. But on the other hand, I am aware of those who have, because it's allowed them to get gigs they otherwise couldn't - because of too much competition in the mainstream. Hence, they instead carved out a creationist 'niche' and were accepted by one creationist (or ID) outfit or another, whether Discovery Institute, Answers in Genesis, The Creation Science Institute or whatever.
Tyson also went on to state:
"The issue there is not religion versus non-religion, or religion versus science. The issue is ideas that are different versus dogma."
This is a noble effort to be diplomatic but it simply doesn't work, doesn't compute. Science - based on naturalism and Materialism - is counterpoised to ANY system based on supernaturalism. It's like trying to mix oil and water. It is a fool's errand."
In other words, I certainly don't agree with everything Tyson says or argues for. I warrant most real nerds are the same, and value critical thinking more than hero worship.
But let's understand that McInnes' scatological dismissal of white nerds is really only a deflection, a diversion. The real target is Tyson himself who McInnes (and Gutfield) obviously regard as "uppity" for daring to ascend to prime time network TV and lecture knuckle draggers about the constitution of reality and how science methodically investigates it.
At root, then, McInnes is a racist slime ball no different from Cliven Bundy and his misbegotten beliefs that blacks would be better off if they were still enslaved and whipped five times a day while their wives are abused by the "Massah".
The irony is that these two turkeys - Gutfield and McInnes - are mounting their semi-cloaked, racist diatribe and putdowns of Neil deGrasse Tyson from the network that has received applause for featuring COSMOS on its Sunday night, prime time lineup.
Abysmally unaware of the ironic nature of their stunt, neither of these half-educated meat heads is fit to lick the soles of Neil de Grasse Tyson's shoes.
No comments:
Post a Comment