Neil deGrasse Tyson...

[liberaltrucker]

Link to tweet

To be scientifically literate is to empower yourself to know when someone else is full of shit.



Spot on!!

[CherokeeDem]

1. I LOVE this man!!!!!

He tells it as it truly is!!

[question everything]

2. Indeed. Heard him talk several years ago

and he was lamenting the stuff that members of Congress push. Don't remember the specifics but he really was concerned that this is the direction that we could expect from D.C.

[CherokeeDem]

3. He was on Bill Mahr's show a couple of years ago....

and asked the question, why so many lawyers in Congress. There should be scientists and other professions. The perspective would change dramatically.

[BigmanPigman]

5. I was just recalling that particular conversation and show this past week...so many lawyers!

[former9thward]

6. Then he should run.

He has the money and name recognition. Why doesn't he do it?

[Hop David]

32. Well actually...

No. He gives a lot of wrong info.

But his fans are the same ones who slept through their math, science and history courses. So they will never know the difference.

[czarjak]

38. One man's facts...

Are another man's butthurt.

[Hop David]

41. Some Tyson "Facts"...

According to Tyson:

There's more transcendental numbers than irrationals.
Arthur C. Clarke was the first to calculate altitude of geosynchronous orbit
No one thought of miniaturizing electronics prior to NASA
Gravity falls exponentially with distance from gravitating body

And it goes on and on and on.

Every time Tyson drops a steaming pile his fans are awed by his intelligence and wisdom. His following is possibly as credulous as Trump's birthers.

[Voltaire2]

51. Your unattributed list seems to be sourced from here:

http://hopsblog-hop.blogspot.com/2016/01/fact-checking-neil-degrasse-tyson.html

You will note, if you scroll through the comments, that Tyson himself responds, has no problem with the fact checking, agrees with much of it, and is quite good humored about it.

[Hop David]

53. Well actually...

Last edited Tue May 30, 2017, 03:55 PM - Edit history (1)

Tyson is not always gracious about fact checking. His initial response to Sean Davis was denial and arrogant condescension. Only with some arm twisting did he acknowledge his Bush story was fiction.

Whether or not Tyson cheerfully or grudgingly acknowledged his error doesn't change the fact that the Bush and Star names story is false. Tyson told this story for eight years and his fans ate it up. To this day Tyson's fans upload these addled memories as an example of Tyson's cleverness. The self congratulatory smugness of his Tyson's fans is amusing. If they're empowered to know when someone is full of shit, why aren't they using this power?

Regarding Hamid al Ghazali, Tyson has done a lot of back pedaling and goal post changing. But he still hasn't acknowledged the Ghazali book he used to cite is a fiction.

I haven't heard Tyson acknowledge that there aren't more transcendental numbers than irrationals. Neil will dispense utter bullshit with an authoritative baritone and his clueless fans swoon. Truly the IFLS crowd are among the most clueless people that walk the earth.

To this day Tyson hasn't acknowledged he mischaracterized the way doctors deliver a prognosis. A doctor doesn't tell a patient "You've got six months". Rather a patient is given statistics. A patient living longer than expected demonstrates statistical outliers on a bell curve, not the idiocy of all three doctors. Dr. Novella called Neil out on this. In Neil's reply to Dr. Novella, he allows "idiot" is a harsh label and instead uses "incompetent". His replies to Novella were clueless and obnoxious.

Tyson hasn't acknowledged his trailer for The Martian is implausible. Departing from LEO it would take Hermes 40 days to spiral out of earth's gravity well. Which destroys the 124 day trajectory Andy Weir so painstakingly calculated. And the slow 40 day spiral through the Van Allen belts would have killed the astronauts. Good job, Neil. Neil can throw a tantrum over the sky in Titanic but he doesn't lift a finger to correct his own bad science fiction.

And the blog you point to doesn't list all of Tysons errors. It doesn't mention Tyson's clueless tweet on painful sex. This is another good example of Tyson refusing to acknowledge his error. The blog doesn't mention Tyson's claim that a golf ball on the moon has reached earth escape velocity. Nor Neil's confusing the observer effect with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. And on. And on. And on.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

74. Well, actually, Tyson's imperfections don't erase his point or the good he does popularizing science

He is human and therefore imperfect. He is also a very busy man doing much good in the world popularizing science and fighting ignorance.

Being scientifically literate comes in gradations and has no ceiling. Tyson's statement simply provides incentive to become MORE scientifically literate.

You dislike Tyson. You are unable to counter his statement so you attack the person. No? Then tell us that "becoming more scientifically literate makes you less able to detect bullshit" and provide evidence for it.

[Hop David]

76. Well actually...

I'm not countering his statement. It's a true statement.

However Tyson's fans aren't scientifically literate. Their lack of ability to exercise skepticism and question assumptions is demonstrated by their unquestioning acceptance of Tyson's false statements.

Tyson and his fans paying lip service to skepticism is like adulterous Republicans paying lip service to family values.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

77. Tyson's fans are trying. tRump's fans are not. . . . nt

[LanternWaste]

88. I've heard rumors of the existence of the "Well, Actually..." dudes,

I've heard rumors of the existence of the "Well, Actually..." dudes, but you''re the first one I've seen in the wild.

Do all of you engage make unsupported allegations (e.g. "heir lack of ability to exercise skepticism and question assumptions&quot to better validate both your narratives and biases, or is that something unique to you?

Regardless, I too pretend I have relevant knowledge of a demographic when it suits my purposes, and I too would prevaricate if asked for objective, peer-reviewed evidence to support my allegations.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

78. That's Hop David's own blog. . . . nt

[edhopper]

54. Wow

Last edited Mon May 29, 2017, 12:22 PM - Edit history (1)

someone who joined DU just to troll Tyson.

And the grievances are so petty. He cited the wrong speech for a fully accurate Bush quote. During a very long interview, he said something about an article written about it when it was brought up. and so on.

it appears someone has a butthurt from Tyson

[Hop David]

55. Wrong quote, wrong context and wrong intent

The Bush quote wasn't accurate at all, much less "fully accurate".

Context wasn't accurate. Bush didn't quote Isaiah during 9-11. If you recall, 9-11 was a time of intense anger against Arabs and Muslims.

And the intent was completely off base. Bush made no attempt to "distinguish we from they". Not during 9-11 nor during his eulogy for the Space Shuttle Columbia astronauts. Bush's actual speech 9-11 speech was a call for tolerance and inclusion. Moreover Bush and his administration repeatedly condemned anti-Muslim rhetoric. Colin Powell played a large part in bringing Corporal Kareem Kahn's sacrifice to public attention.

Tyson paints a picture of a racist, xenophobic demagogue. And it's completely false. You trivialize this by calling it "petty"? Sorry, you are as credible as one of Trump's birthers.

>it appears someone has a butthurt from Tyson

Homophobic ad hominem noted.

[edhopper]

59. Yeah

and Tyson never addressed it

But I was wrong about when he said it. It appears in his speech after the Columbia Shuttle disaster, eighteen months after September 11th 2001. My bad. And I here publicly apologize to the President for casting his quote in the context of contrasting religions rather than as a poetic reference to the lost souls of Columbia. I have no excuse for this, other than both events– so close to one another — upset me greatly. In retrospect, I’m surprised I remembered any details from either of them.

We'll keep lauding him for his work to bring science to the public. You keep dragging that dead horse.

And nice of you to come here and defend Bush.

Like I said, you joined DU just to bash Tyson, which seems to be your raison d'erte.

[Hop David]

60. Wrong again

Tyson had addressed it, although with some reluctance.

It was you who mischaracterized it as a petty mistake. In your world the mistake was merely a wrong date. Whereas Tyson admits wrong date, wrong context and wrong intent.

"We'll keep lauding him for his work to bring science to the public. You keep dragging that dead horse. "

Tyson told that story for eight years and his fans ate it up. And his fans are still uploading it even after it's been soundly debunked. Sorry, but you congratulating yourselves on your skepticism is a joke.

What is more Tyson continues to bull shit. He'll study something with half his attention and then build a story around it. Which is usually entertaining but often wrong. But for the most part Tyson's fans won't notice the misinformation because they are clueless when it comes to math, science and history.

"And nice of you to come here and defend Bush."

I don't like Bush. Voted for Obama both times as well as Hillary.

But while I don't like Bush, I do like accuracy and factual accounts of history. Unlike you, evidently.

[edhopper]

62. poor skeptics

wrong about everything.

So when do we see any non Tyson posts?

Or is this just drive by trolling?

[Hop David]

64. You're not a skeptic

[edhopper]

65. Glad you know all about me

Who I am and what I have done.

Not like you insist on absolute 100% accuracy before saying anything.

[wryter2000]

4. Carl Sagan with a potty mouth

Love him

[CherokeeDem]

7. Sagan was my hero....

Tyson hasn't taken his place but he is close!!!

[PatSeg]

9. Sagan was more about the science

Too often Tyson lets his ego get in the way. He has become more of a celebrity than a scientist.

[Solomon]

13. LOL

Ego?!. No one had more ego than Sagan "bee le uns and bee le uns"...

I guess Tyson be too uppity.

[pangaia]

20. Uh, I knew Sagan, a bit.

Just a bit. Had several long dinners into the wee hours....

There is ego, and then there is ego.

[PatSeg]

21. I suppose

I just didn't seen it come across in his incarnation of Cosmos like I did with Tyson. I can only take him in small doses. He gets very arrogant and overbearing.

[pangaia]

22. I'm not 100% sure what you mean.. which is which..

But, frankly, with all the respect I have for Tyson,, I never watch him either, even in small doses..

[PatSeg]

26. I watched his entire Cosmos series

and though I found it interesting, after awhile, it felt like Tyson's huge personality got in the way of the science. Prior to that, I'd seen him and Derrick Pitts as contributors on various shows whenever there was a science story. They were both informative and personable, though I preferred Pitts, who seemed more down-to-earth.

[Salviati]

18. That's not what people said about Sagan at the time, and I'm sure it what people will be saying....

About Tyson when the next generations science popularizer gains prominence.

http://www.nytimes.com/books/99/11/28/reviews/991128.28holingt.html

[Hop David]

34. His ego is bigger than Texas

Here's a profile on Tyson written for the New Yorker by Rebecca Mead. Mead's article is dripping with admiration for Tyson.

Check out the way he treats Ms Mead:

"... And he still nurses resentment over a seemingly admiring year-old New Yorker profile that described him as “not a distinguished student” because his grades weren’t consistently high.
“No, no, no, no, no. As far as I can judge, I was anything but a mediocre child.
“What’s interesting is I have two or three times as many Twitter followers as the New Yorker has circulation,” Tyson says. “So I haven’t done it yet, but I’m going to post the article and say, ‘This is verbally accurate and impressionistically false.’ It will be an exercise in journalism.”

From a Tyson interview with the Washington Post.

The man is a pompous douche.

[NastyRiffraff]

15. Sagan was also Neil's hero

In his Cosmos series, he told a wonderful story of how he met Carl Sagan as a teenager who dreamed of being a scientist and how Sagan took the time to meet and encourage him. He ended it with "I always knew what kind of scientist I wanted to be. After that meeting, I knew what kind of man I wanted to be."

[liberaltrucker]

8. Well stated!

nt

[furtheradu]

11. HA! Yep!

[progressoid]

24. I'm impressed by his restraint!

I would have a hard time being so gracious.

[Towlie]

42. Carl Sagan never posted a single tweet that was without obscenity.

[Voltaire2]

45. true dat

[erronis]

10. But to be scientifically illiterate is to not have to listen to reason.

There's an amazing amount of pride in people that I encounter daily who say "Well, I'm not a scientist" or "I don't have time to read about those things.

And some of these people are actually my friends, liberals, my relatives, anti-know-nothings.

An awful lot of people will just go along with what their friends are saying without really thinking about the underpinnings and consequences. And these are liberal, well-meaning people.

There are very few of us (and I consider myself as one) who will question almost any "fact" and ask how it got to become a "fact".

It takes more work but is ultimately very satisfying.

And it may prevent senior onset shit.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

14. Then the sci illiterates can get completely and devastatingly trumped by reality. . . . nt

[Bernardo de La Paz]

16. Yes, they'd all hide English illiteracy but are proud of scientific and math illiteracy. Ignorant.

[erronis]

23. I agree with what you're saying but this isn't willful ignorance

It is the normal excuse that most people make when they say they don't have time to read all the news that I read. That they don't understand the "science"; they have other interests.

I don't have any real science background but I have a curiosity about why things are the way they are. Curiosity and skepticism are the tools to puncture balloons and move into the future. Unfortunately they are also excuses to get burned at the stake and get canned from a job.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

31. You make my point. They don't have curiosity & skepticism. They are comfortable with their delusions

They willfully do not want to go outside of their comfort zone.

Democrats have to find ways to get them out of their shells and look around a little.

[Hop David]

67. Comfortable with their delusions

Look at you dripping with contempt for the inferior people outside your group.

People here suffer from their own delusions. You seem to think you're above human frailties like xenophobia and confirmation bias.

The Tyson quote from the OP:
"To be scientifically literate is to empower yourself to know when someone else is full of shit."

If Tyson's audience is empowered to detect shit, why do they keep swallowing Tyson's bull?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

73. Quit stuffing words into people's mouths.

Nothing I wrote calls these people "inferior", per se. So cut that kind of crap. It undermines your carefully crafted rationalistic stance because it is a cheap-to-deploy worthless debating tactic.

Willfully deluded tRump supporters may be superior to me (statistically) in bravery. Or not. We do not know.

Willfully deluded tRump supporters may be superior to me in physical strength (statistically). Or not. We do not know.

I did not discuss bravery or physical strength, but I did discuss the aspect of critical thinking, where they are inferior, inferior even to you. Yes, people who are willfully incurious like tRump and most of his followers, and notoriously avoid even basic study of issues like tRump and most of his followers, are people who are worthy of contempt for that.

You (purposely?) make the ridiculous claim that I am contemptuous of such people simply because they are "outside your group". Nothing could be farther from the truth. You would discover this if you read a number of my posts discussing Republicans (for example) and how they are not a homogeneous group. I wrote one such post today.

But that didn't deter you from making a baseless attack.

You are scathingly contemptuous of Tyson's followers, but at least they are curious about science and spend time studying some of it. That makes YOU the pot calling the kettle black but, more than that, you have less ground to stand on.

I do try hard to be above xenophobia and confirmation bias. If I fail, feel free to call me out on it, but provide evidence. I think you will have a lot of difficulty finding such instances. You make insinuations that come close to crossing the DU ToS.

So you are absolutely wrong when you write "You seem to think you're above human frailties like xenophobia and confirmation bias."


You write: "If Tyson's audience is empowered to detect shit, why do they keep swallowing Tyson's bull?"

There are several problems with your statement. First, your premises are flawed. Tyson is human and makes errors. That does not mean that all or most or even much of what he says is "bull". Second, you write "keep swallowing" when there are many in his audience such as yourself who find fault with his errors. Third, you assume that his audience is completely scientifically and historically literate. They follow him because they have a thirst to become more scientifically literate and he delivers on that in many many ways.

Fourth, you write off Tyson's audience because they are not perfect. His audience mostly have the attributes that tRump's followers do not. They are not perfect but neither are tRump's followers perfectly deplorable.



Your demand for perfection from Tyson, from me, from DU members, from Tyson's audience, is doomed to failure and is pointless. "The perfect is the enemy of the good."

[Hop David]

79. Errrr...

Here are your words:

"They don't have curiosity & skepticism. They are comfortable with their delusions

"They willfully do not want to go outside of their comfort zone.

"Democrats have to find ways to get them out of their shells and look around a little."

You seem to believe you have curiosity and skepticism that "they" lack. You say "they" are comfortable with their delusions and "they" do not want to go outside their comfort zone.

You're a pompous xenophobe.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

80. You don't have a clue what the word xenophobe means. Look it up.

I have more curiosity and skepticism than they do. I read their forums and can see it writ large.

Yes, they don't go out of their comfort zones. They write about how they are more and more reducing their news sources, lately including turning off Fox for being "too liberal".

Democrats won't be able to reach out to them until Ds find ways to counter fake news and Trump follower insularity. It's true and you don't counter that.

All you have is slams against me, DU member and NdGT. I have not seen you write one positive forward looking statement that helps Democrats counter scientific illiteracy, counter tRump supporters, or increase political power. I've read just about everything you've written on DU.

[Hop David]

83. one unduly fearful of what is foreign

That's you. You are dripping with hatred and contempt for those that don't share your world view.

"I have not seen you write one positive forward looking statement that helps Democrats counter scientific illiteracy,"

Here's a positive statement: Learn how to exercise true skepticism, not just play lip service. Walk the walk as well as talk the talk. That is a path to true credibility.


"All you have is slams against me, DU member and NdGT."

Demonstrably false.

Several times I've pointed to the hypocrisy of adulterous Republicans paying lip service to family values.

Family values was a big reason I voted for Obama over McCain. Obama is devoted to his wife and daughters. McCain ditched his crippled first wife for a wealthier spouse. The marital fidelity of Newt Gingrich and Trump is a joke.

I will go to Trump circlejerks and point out Trump's falsehoods. For example see this graphic:



I participate in forums outside my preferred echo chambers. Sometimes I'm presented with evidence that changes my views. On occasion people acknowledge the evidence I present. But that's the exception, not the rule. More often people defend their favorite doctrines with ad hominem. I'm talking to you, Bernardo.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

84. You still don't get it. Trump supporters are Americans. Americans are NOT foreign to me. . . nt

[Bernardo de La Paz]

85. Ad hominem? Your first post to me had two ad hominem attacks against me. Give it up

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=9136139

[pablo_marmol]

36. "But to be scientifically illiterate is to not have to listen to reason."

Utterly false and unfair statement. If a person is humble, and has a curious mind he/she can be not just willing....but be excited to listen to reason -- without scientific literacy. It's a matter of character.

[pansypoo53219]

12. one of the few tweets i follow.

i don't do most twits.

[pangaia]

17. Hell, just literate.. hell, just use one's brain...

[Oneironaut]

19. Link to tweet with comments:

https://mobile.twitter.com/neiltyson/status/868497205308657665

Neil's brutal honesty really is refreshing.

[guillaumeb]

30. Some call it brutal honesty,

some call it intolerance and pettiness.

[A HERETIC I AM]

33. How adorable

Your ability to wipe away the trite and irrelevant in order to allow your imperious self to shine forth is truly a thing of beauty.

[Lordquinton]

35. Some do call it that

usually those who have been called out by those who are scientifically literate.

[Hop David]

50. Who's scientifically literate?

Tyson's following swallowed the Bush and Star Names fiction for eight years.

This crowd doesn't know shit from shinola.

[GoneOffShore]

52. Welcome to DU. Enjoy your stay.

As brief as it may be.

[Hop David]

57. Thank you

So far I am enjoying it. Thanks.

[Lordquinton]

63. The what?

[Hop David]

66. The Bush and Star Names fiction

There is this website called Google, you don't know about it? If you're curious you can look for another one of my posts in this thread: Wrong quote, wrong context, wrong intent.

[Lordquinton]

69. So you make an accusation and refuse to back it up

I have no idea what you're talking about, and I'm not going to do your research.

[Hop David]

81. This is tedious

Repeating this is tedious but evidently necessary.

Above Tyson gives an account of Bush's response to 9-11. According to Tyson, Bush seized this time of intense anger to sow division. Tyson has Bush bragging about his God in order to "distinguish we from they".

Bush's actual response was a level headed call for tolerance and inclusion. Exactly the opposite of the xenophobic demagogue Tyson invented.

Bush and his administration repeatedly condemned anti-Muslim rhetoric. Colin Powell played a large part in bringing Corporal Kareem Kahn's sacrifice to public attention.

Tyson delivered this false story for eight years before Sean Davis blew the whistle on him in September of 2014. At first Tyson's response was denial and smug condescension towards Davis. But with some arm twisting Tyson eventually admitted error and apologized to Bush. And to this day Tyson's fans continue to upload vids of Tyson recounting his addled memories and false accusations. Even after Tyson's fantasy has been soundly debunked.

Why have these "skeptics" swallowed a false story year after year after year? Because it casts a Republican, Christian president in an unflattering light. Just like everyone else they are happy to swallow bull shit if it reaffirms their prejudices.

[Lordquinton]

82. You're really fiercly defending Bush here

Bush did promote anti-islamic sentiment, to claim otherwise is downright dishonest. Yes, he did make distinctions, but the terror list, and his direct actions undermined all of that, except to his true believers.

Which makes me wonder about your agenda, why are you coming here, brand new to this board attacking a prominent, black liberal to defend George W. Bush, the man who's presidency was the catalyst for this website?

[paleotn]

47. Sorry, but I too am intolerant of ignorance and stupidity.....

Are you saying fundigelical, trumpkin like ignorance and stupidity are perfectly valid points of view we should tolerate? Ummm, I don't think so.

[Hop David]

68. Unless it's ignorance and stupidity you agree with.

[Buns_of_Fire]

25. I love how he can break down these concepts into terms

even I can grasp.

[Hop David]

27. Then Tyson's fans must not be scientifically literate,

Because Tyson is often dispensing bull shit.

For example, Tyson's account of Bush's response to 9-11. He has Bush seizing that very emotional time to brag about his God "in order to distinguish we from they." When Bush's actual speech was a call for tolerance and inclusion, exactly the opposite of xenophobic demagogue from Tyson's fantasy. Bush and his administration have repeatedly condemned anti-Muslim rhetoric. In fact Colin Powell played a large part in bring Corporal Kareem Kahn's sacrifice to public attention.

Tyson told and retold this steaming pile for eight years. Sean Davis blew the whistle on Tyson in 2014. With some arm twisting Tyson eventually admitted his error and apologized to Bush.

Here is the story in question:

&feature=youtu.be&t=90

The Bash and Star Names fiasco isn't his only screw-up. Tyson will study a topic with half his attention and then build a story around it. Which is usually entertaining but often wrong.

The most recent example was a Joe Rogan interview. With a smooth, confident baritone, Tyson informed Rogan there are more transcendental numbers than irrationals. Joe Rogan and the rest of Tyson's fans were wowed.

[guillaumeb]

29. Attempting to tarnish the deGrasse-Tyson halo?

Some here will not like that.

Welcome to DU.

[guillaumeb]

28. Where does judgmentalism fit in with the self-described "scientifically literate"?

Just wondering.

[Act_of_Reparation]

70. It fits nicely in confronting those who prey on ignorance for profit.

Anti-vaxxers. Truthers. Birthers. Conspiracy theorists. Chiropractors. Homeopaths. Naturopaths. Reflexologists. I could go on all fucking day.

But heaven forbid we judge these scumbags.

[guillaumeb]

71. I was actually speaking of the judgmentalism of deGrasse Tyson and his disciples.

And I agree, we should not judge.

[Act_of_Reparation]

86. Spare us your tiresome sanctimony.

If you think it improper to judge, then feel free to stop judging at your earliest convenience.

[guillaumeb]

87. I read much tiresome sanctimony from some non-theists here.

[pablo_marmol]

37. Let's take it a step further.......

To follow the verdict of empirical evidence -- with or without scientific literacy -- is to empower yourself to know when someone else is full of shit.

There are plenty of scientifically literate people who screw the pooch due to their confirmation biases.

[ecstatic]

39. To the people who are offended:

He's not putting himself and science geeks above everyone else, I think he's saying that anyone can empower his or herself by simply reading. Nobody is born knowing everything. Nobody knows everything.

In my experience, many people have a phobia of diving in and learning new things (for example, trial and error with new software). Then the same people describe those who know how to do certain things as geniuses, but that "genius" is simply someone who dives in to new topics without fear, and who researches or googles the parts he/she doesn't know. If there's a topic of interest to you, you can become "scientifically literate" by googling (of course, be extremely selective about the sources... Researching is a skill as well).

[Hop David]

58. Yes he is

Tyson and his following confuse paying lip service to skepticism with actually practicing skepticism. They enjoy looking down on their ignorant neighbors.

But Tyson's fans are just as credulous as anyone. Like most people they'll happily consume bull shit if it reaffirms their prejudices.

[colorado_ufo]

40. Science needs to be skeptical even of itself.

The most frequent phrase we hear is, "We now know that . . ."

[Towlie]

43. If we don't know what scientists have discovered then we don't know anything at all.

[Voltaire2]

46. um uh, science is a skeptical process.

It's built in.

[Hop David]

56. Indeed...

Skepticism lies at the foundation of the philosophy of science.

But what's comical is Tyson and his credulous fans paying lip service to skepticism. It is much like adulterous Republicans paying lip service to family values.

[Vinca]

44. This should be on the walls of schools around the country. Especially in red states.

[Initech]

48. Love it!!!!

[yortsed snacilbuper]

49. Neil's the real deal.

[rockfordfile]

61. True

[Calista241]

72. I would rather watch StarTalk or Cosmos than nearly anything else on TV.

And he has hours and hours of tape on YouTube that's worth watching.