Quickies: New Thor, Taking Down Dr. Oz, and Lightning Storms from Space

  • Odin’s Beard! Marvel Announces A New Thor — And She’s A Woman – ” ‘This is not She-Thor. This is not Lady Thor. This is not Thorita. This is THOR. This is the THOR of the Marvel Universe,’ Aaron said. ‘But it’s unlike any Thor we’ve ever seen before.’ “
  • Meet the medical student who wants to bring down Dr. Oz – “Last year, Mazer brought a policy before the Medical Society of the State of New York—where Dr. Oz is licensed—requesting that they consider regulating the advice of famous physicians in the media. His idea: Treat health advice on TV in the same vein as expert testimony, which already has established guidelines for truthfulness.”
  • The Democrats’ Brilliant Idea for How to Stop Unnecessary Abortion Clinic Regulations – “It’s called the Women’s Health Protection Act, and it would end the attacks on abortion clinics through one simple measure: requiring states to regulate abortion providers in exactly the same way they do other clinics and doctors who provide comparable services. No more singling out abortion providers.”
  • Zzzzzzzap! And Whooooosh! – Phil Plait discusses some cool videos of what lightning storms look like from the International Space Station.

Featured Image


Mary Brock works as an Immunology scientist by day and takes care of a pink-loving princess child by night. She likes cloudy days, crafting, cooking, and Fall weather in New England.

Related Articles


  1. If anyone is angry about Thor being a woman, I have two words: Eric Masterson. ‘Nuff said.

    1. To clarify, I mean there have been so many bizarre, crappy alternate Thors (including Throg, the frog Thor and Beta Ray Bill), a woman Thor shouldn’t raise any damn eyebrows.

    2. Seriously, if we mentioned all the weirdness Marvel’s done over the years, Femme!Thor wouldn’t even be in the top 100 weird things Marvel’s done. Especially since, um, Loki pretends to be a woman in several stories.

  2. Criminy, so in the comments on the abortion clinic story (it’s stinky in there), seems now the anti-choice zealots are “offended” by the term anti-choice. Well boo-frickin’-hoo! Here a thought, if you don’t want to be called anti-choice stop opposing a woman’s right to choose, you big crybabies.

    Somebody actually compared calling these zealots anti-choice rather than their preferred “pro-life” (which I just can’t, too many are against all none fetus-based life) to using the t-word to describe a trans woman because it is “what they wish to be called”.
    That is too daft to actually try to explain to them so I’ll put it another way.

    Well numbnuts, I wish to be called the King of Sweden and your refusal is hurting my tender feelings. What do you mean it’s not appropriate because I am not actually Carl XVI Gustaf? I accurately called you anti-choice instead of the wildly inaccurate “pro-life” and you were offended and said it was disrespectful because it wasn’t what you wanted to be called, accuracy never came into it. So which is it? Do you want to be called what you want to be called (In which case you should address me as “Your Majesty” and hand me that silly hat) or do you wish to be labeled as to your true intentions? I’m waiting.

    Sorry for the rant but these people are starting to get on my last fucking nerve.

    1. I get where you are going, but I have heard that argument in favor of intentionally misgendering transgender persons too many times to not cringe and get upset seeing it again.

      1. I agree, that’s what made me so pissed about the comparison. BTW, they made the comparison not me.

        They also didn’t seem to understand the completely unsubtle difference between saying someone is anti-choice (a true description of their position) and calling someone pro-abortion (a position I have literally never heard anyone hold). Words mean things, I wonder if they realize that?

  3. Now.. There in an interesting idea… extend the rule they are trying to apply to doctors, with respect to “expert testimony” to journalists – They claim to be presenting the facts to the public, and there is an assumed level of trust involved, with respect to them getting it right, so, if they are, like a certain station, making things up, misrepresenting the facts, etc., they would be obviously violating the rules, if such a rule was in place. If they want to continue presenting gibberish, then they have to explicitly state that everything that the people watching hear from them is “opinion”, not “fact”, and should be treated with the same value as informercials.

  4. Mary,

    Thanks for pointing out that Amanda Marcotte piece on abortion clinic regulations. You just know that the GOP is going to fight that tooth and nail through.

  5. Lighting from space is always cool to watch. Nova did a special on the ionosphere that include some of the studies done on the ISS to study lightning “sprites” that fly off into the ionosphere during particularly powerful lightning.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Back to top button