7 things @ 9 o’clock (9.25)

1. Here is C.S. Lewis’ recipe for cinnamon bourbon rice pudding. The recipe doesn’t include a suggested substitute to the bourbon for teetotaling American Christians because Lewis thought teetotaling American Christians were an annoying bunch of Telmarines. “One of the marks of a certain type of bad man,” Lewis wrote in Mere Christianity, “is that he cannot give up a thing himself without wanting everyone else to give it up.”

2. Right Wing Watch reports: “The totally-not-delusional Larry Klayman has finally set a date for his proposed uprising to remove President Obama from office: November 19.” You should read the whole post for a sense of just how full-gonzo bonkers Klayman is. Suggested soundtrack as you read: “Klayman’s Theme.” (Terry Taylor’s “Neverhood” music vastly improves reading any right-wing screeds. “Dum Da Dum Doi Doi” works well with Glenn Beck, while “Homina Homina” is a fine accompaniment for Sen. Ted Cruz.)

3. Corey Robin on going down the rabbit hole of a WAS, or a Wrongly Attributed Statement (or a Who Actually Said). This is a lot easier in the age of Google, but it still lures me into the occasional fruitless hour or two every little bit.

4. Bono’s Bill Clinton impression ain’t bad. He’s got the sound of it down, but he needs to add the knuckle-point, the lip-bite and the sly, semi-guilty smile-while-looking-off-to-the-side.

5. New to me: Phantom’s List. “Links to writing by women around the Web,” is the tagline. “Because you don’t have to read The Man … if you don’t wanna.” The list is posted weekly by the Phantom Scribbler, who has eclectic sensibilities and a wide-ranging curiosity and generosity — just the sort of person you want curating such a list. Update your Google Reader RSS feed.

6. Proof that marriage equality really is a threat to religious freedom — it just got this pastor fired!

To a rational person, “religious liberty” would mean that a pastor was free to marry or not to marry any given couple based on that pastor’s religious convictions. This is also what “religious liberty” would mean to someone who speaks standard English. But according to our new redefinition of “religious liberty” it means, instead, the freedom to ban others from religious beliefs that the privileged disagree with.

That reminds me of something C.S. Lewis said in Mere Christianity, “One of the marks of a certain type of bad man …”

7. Carol Howard Merritt doesn’t like the term “mainline” Protestant: “I, for one, am tired of pretending that we want to hang out at the Country Club and eat cucumber sandwiches in fancy hats. We are not some sort of upper-crust elite society.” Good point, but I’ll reserve the term “mainline” for this song:

"So vote 3rd Party or write someone’s name in. It avoids voting for the lesser ..."

White evangelical logic: A child-molester is ..."
"Supreme Court justices must be confirmed by the Senate. Which is why Gorsuch is on ..."

White evangelical logic: A child-molester is ..."
"I'm from the UK, so I may be missing something, but isn't abortion in the ..."

White evangelical logic: A child-molester is ..."
"CBS was developing a young Miss Marple series.http://deadline.com/2015/10...It's fascinating for just how it seems to ..."

White evangelical logic: A child-molester is ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Jim Roberts

    We have a chili contest coming up at church and my recipe involves a bottle of hard cider. It bugs me that I have to seriously consider whether or not including that ingredient.
    On average, you eat a cup of my chili, you’ll be eating less hard cider than there is in a dose of cough syrup, but I just know someone’s going to get in a tiff over it.

  • Dragoness Eclectic

    Alcohol boils off in cooking, leaving the flavor behind. Explain that to anyone who fusses.

  • schismtracer

    Since when do facts matter to self-appointed moral guardians?

  • dpolicar

    FWIW, when I ask about alcohol in food, I’m doing so to protect myself from a food sensitivity. People are of course free to cook however they wish, I just want the information so I can make informed choices about what I eat. (I don’t take alcoholic cough syrup either. Or mouthwash.)

    IME either “alcohol boils off” simply isn’t true (though I’m often told this, often in a remarkably dismissive tone), or what I actually am sensitive to is some other substance that tends to come along with alcohol. Beats me which.

  • Jim Roberts

    From what I’ve read – and I’ve read a fair bit of it, out of pure interest in the subject – whether it burns off depends on the manner of cooking, the type of liquid used and the ingredients. If you’re cooking something brewed, like beer or cider, in a closed pot with a lot of fatty ingredients, you’ll hardly lose any. If you cook wine in a large, open pan with mostly vegetables and high acid, you can lose virtually all of it.

  • dpolicar

    That makes sense.

  • P J Evans

    Possibly one of the ingredients in it – I know someone who’s allergic to corn, including corn-based alcohol.

  • dpolicar

    Maybe? I’ve had bad reactions to wine, to a couple of clear alcohols (maybe identical, maybe not), and to mouthwash; I don’t know what ingredients they all have in common (well, other than alcohol itself).

  • AnonaMiss

    Do you have reactions to rubbing alcohol? (On the skin, of course.)

  • dpolicar

    Not that I’ve noticed, though I honestly can’t recall the last time I used the stuff. Still, it’s probably a component in various things I use… deodorants and whatnot… and has never caused a reaction as far as I can tell.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    There is peppermint in some mouthwashes; wines have various nonalcoholic organics that lend flavor.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    I suspect there is always some left behind because it has to boil as an azeotrope when it hits 95% effective concentration.

    Brain fart. Actually this is wrong.

    Cooking with venting acts like distillation. Ethanol is the more volatile component so it boils first, and so the concentration in the water in the food goes down, not up.

    I blame being distracted. :P

  • Jim Roberts

    This is in a slow cooker, so it’ll only lose somewhere around 50% of the alcohol content. I may still go with that, though.

  • GDwarf

    Not quite true. Some alcohol does boil off, but for most cooking you’re only losing maybe half of it, which is worth noting, especially if you’ll be driving or taking a Breathalyzer test later.

  • Isabel C.

    I was wondering why I kept getting a buzz from cherries jubilee! (Lightest lightweight ever, here.)

  • Nick Gotts

    I was recently prescribed a course of metronidazole for an infection, and warned not to take any alcohol, including food cooked with wine or beer, on pain of highly unpleasant sickness.

  • LoneWolf343

    How about you don’t tell them, then giggle behind their backs? That’s what I would do.

  • dpolicar

    Yeah; a lot of people do this, as I’ve often discovered to my annoyance.

    I’m currently dealing with some irritating symptoms of that from a party a while back. No doubt they assure themselves that I’m just making up the whole “alcohol sensitivity” thing, since I didn’t suddenly fall over or burst out in hives or something while at their party.

    For my own part, I prefer to let people make informed food choices, even if I don’t respect them or their reasons for making them, and I prefer to be treated that way myself.

  • Baby_Raptor

    I have some sympathy for you, but my problem is with doctors doubting me when I tell them I’m allergic to Tetracycline. They usually swear that the situation wherein I discovered my allergy would be “impossible to tell,” and assume that I’m just making it up to get a ‘preferred’ antibiotic.

    And with the Tetracycline family being one of the two most common, I get this reaction nearly every single time.

  • chgo_liz

    Hives, by any chance? Me too….but fortunately my doctors take it seriously. That, and the fact that tetracycline actually isn’t a first-line choice anymore makes me wonder about the professionalism of your doctor.

    The thing about tetracycline and sulfa drugs (another one I react to) is that they’re dirt cheap, unlike the newer options. Why would someone think you WANTED to pay more?

  • Baby_Raptor

    Right? Especially with no insurance!

    I had no idea it wasn’t first rate anymore…It’s always the first one they try and prescribe here in Arkansas.

  • Shakes

    It’s less about cost, and more about bacterial tolerance/resistance. If TC can do the job, that’s what they’ll reach for – since a bug developing (and spreading) a resistance to that medication is less problematic than prescribing a quinolone or rifampin, and giving what could be a mild bug a chance to develop a resistance to drugs for which there are few alternatives.
    Tetracyclines also have a relatively low side-effect rate and allergy profile (although it’s certainly not hypoallergenic, hence this conversation.) These days, as liz said, it’s not always a first choice, but for certain infections its still a front-runner for safety reasons. It really depends on the infection – as for the appropriateness of that drug prescription, you’ve always got the right to a second opinion, especially if you feel you’re not being taken seriously.

    Edit: Ok, so in a sense it IS about cost, but mostly in the risk/reward and appropriate rationing sense of the word.

  • kcrothers

    Penicillin nearly killed me as a child, and I still have trouble convincing some docs not to give related drugs (which cause similar reactions) such as ampicillin and amoxicillin.

  • Lori

    The fact that tetracycline is old is actually a reason to prescribe it for people who can take it, and for whom it works. Our tendency to want to put everyone and their dog on new stuff is part of the reason that we’re rapidly heading into the the post-antibiotic era of overwhelming drug resistance.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Ask for a scratch test and have them dab some on your hand/arm, then they’ll shut up. (If you don’t mind the inflammation on your arm, that is.)

  • LoneWolf343

    Yeah, the key word being “informed.” This isn’t about allergies or something like that. It is about pride. I’m not denigrating your condition in any way (I looked it up, and apparently “alcohol intolerance” is real enough to warrent a listing at the Mayo Clinic’s website,) but the alcohol is just a MacGuffin here. Substitute “dancing” or “worldly entertrainment” for “alcohol,” and the attitude the original poster is describing remains the same, a haughtiness reinforced by bad theology.

  • dpolicar

    I don’t disagree.

    But, as you say, the key word is “informed.”

    Putting alcohol in food, not telling people, and giggling behind their backs is difficult to reconcile with that, regardless of how foolish those people are.

    I hadn’t realized alcohol intolerance was Officially A Thing, though… I should look that up. (The last time I tried was like a decade ago, and I couldn’t find anything. I like living in the future.) Thanks!

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    It’s known that some Asians and Aboriginals cannot metabolize alcohol as efficiently, but I live in a part of Canada where it’s useful to know this, is why I even know.

  • Nick Gotts

    See also my comment about metronidazole above. There are quite a few medications with which any alcohol is strongly contraindicated. Of course, anyone on such medications should ask, but not to warn people is grossly irresponsible.

  • Jim Roberts

    I would totally do this if we didn’t have a lot of people at church with food sensitivities, and so have to have our ingredient list with our entries.

  • http://www.nicolejleboeuf.com/index.php Nicole J. LeBoeuf-Little

    That’s a pretty awful thing to do to anyone. If consent matters – and it does – and if the right to grant or withhold consent for things going into your body especially matters – and it damn well does – then allowing others to make informed choices about what goes into their body is pretty damn important.

    It doesn’t matter if you don’t think they have sufficient reason for not wanting alcohol, or meat, or gluten, or whatever to go into their bodies. If you respect consent, you don’t “trick” them into eating something they have explicitly stated they do not want to eat. That’s an asshole move.

    (I swear, the next time someone suggests I slip some bacon into a meal I prepare for my vegetarian husband, and “see if he notices,” I am not going to be polite at all in expressing my disgust with them.)

  • LoneWolf343

    Well, it would really depend on why he is a vegetarian. If he does it because he genuinely hates the taste of meat, then that would be mean. If he does it for his health, than I would say he’s a bit misguided, but it is still mean. If he does it for personal ethical reasons, then it is mean. If he does it to flaunt how special and awesome he is, and osterisizing, shaming, or otherwise assuaging a sense of superiority, then he is the mean one, and then it would be comeuppance.

    That’s the point here. The teetotalers in Christianity (for the most part) aren’t doing it for personal reasons. They’re inventing another reason to place themselves above “the others.” It’s not about alcohol with them; it is about pride.

  • dpolicar

    That’s a cogent position and you articulate it well. Thank you for that.

    That said, my own position is different.

    If I reject treating Sam a certain way because it is a mean way to treat someone, I would say I ought not suddenly start endorsing it when I discover Sam is a mean person.

    Calling it comeuppance doesn’t change that.

  • Isabel C.

    I would, but I also don’t make any bones about being mean when I think it’s justified. I have lines I won’t cross, but there are absolutely things I’ll do to people who suck that I’d never do to a friend or a stranger.

  • stardreamer42

    NO IT DOES NOT depend on why he’s a vegetarian. It depends on RESPECTING PERSONAL AUTONOMY. Stop digging before you get to China.

  • arcseconds

    Excellent! It’s quite clear to me that all teetotallers, vegetarians, ethical shoppers and people who won’t eat ponies are all holier-than-thou special snowflakes who are just doing it to garner attention and have their way with people, so when I serve up my vodka slave-farmed horse special, I always swear it’s soy.

  • Alix

    A sign of how loopy I am today: I initially read the hyphen as a divider between two phrases (thanks, sis, for your weird typing quirks making it hard to parse normal punctuation!) and so I was sitting here wondering what a “vodka slave” was. >.>

    …It took me three passes to figure out what you meant. >.< I think I need to go to bed.

  • Alix

    1. How do you know for certain what their reasons are?

    2. Why does it matter? If they don’t want it in their body, they don’t want it in their body. If they get snotty and holier-than-thou later about it, there are ways to take them down a peg that don’t involve tricking people into ingesting things they don’t want ingested.

    People thinking they ~know~ when folks are being holier-than-thou about food choices are why my best friend won’t go to most coffee shops anymore. One too many people decided “soy milk, please” was her rubbing her veganism in their faces.

  • glendanowakowsk

    Yes, exactly. Mock people mercilessly, but do NOT fuck with their food.

  • Alix

    The other thing is, not eating something for a long time/never eating something can mean you have a lower tolerance for it. (This is most obvious with things like alcohol and spicy foods, but I have a friend who hasn’t eaten meat in so long she can’t tolerate more than a small amount.) So even if the person really is a holier-than-thou asshole, if they really keep to their strictures they may not be able to handle something even if they’re not technically allergic/intolerant.

    I’d rather err on the side less likely to cause bodily harm to people, when all is said and done.

  • stardreamer42

    NOT a good idea, about any ingredient. Food sensitivities exist, and they cause real problems.

    I’ve dropped people from my social circle for feeding me something with an ingredient they know I dislike and then saying, “If you didn’t know it had X in it, then you wouldn’t know you weren’t supposed to like it.” And for me that’s just surprise-it-tastes-bad, not surprise-I’m-going-to-the-hospital. So my response to statements like yours tends to be “FOAD, asshole.”

  • Jon Maki

    Apparently it’s not possible to play that Bono clip – the link autoplays another video, and if you click to play the actual clip it just hangs on loading. But maybe it’s just me. (In any case, I actually saw it already as the “Moment of Zen” on “The Daily Show.)

  • Carstonio

    I’ve always thought of “mainline Protestants” as referring simply to members of long-established denominations, not as any kind of moneyed elite.

  • LoneWolf343

    Those ARE the privileged. Privilege does necessarily mean money.

  • Carstonio

    You mean that the better reputation of the established denominations amounts to privilege for their members? While that makes sense, Merritt was referring specifically to economic privilege or the perception of it.

  • lowtechcyclist

    In addition to what Carstonio said, I’ll add that the average Methodist isn’t all that privileged by any definition, other than to the extent that white Christians in general are mildly privileged in this country. And since this is about “mainline Protestants” compared to Christians in general, there doesn’t seem to be any daylight to speak of there.

  • Guest

    Actually the “long established denominations” (the mainline churches): the Lutherans, Episcopalians, Methodists, certain kinds of Presbyterians, etc. have been pretty effectively marginalized by the Evangelicals and Fundamentalists.

  • Sue White

    It always reminds me of the church I was baptized in. Which probably has a lot of moneyed elite.

  • Hth

    Yeah, I thought that origin was really interesting! I grew up in a mainline church and never had any idea that it originated in a particular geographic reference. I thought it just meant — you know, that we were the poky, mostly-theologically-orthodox but not-really-hidebound, middle-of-the-road denominations, with our cranky conservative fringe and our hippie progressive fringe, but mostly just…mainline. I never had the slightest idea that there was once an economic implication to the term, and in its defense, I don’t think I’m alone in that. When you say “Lutherans are a mainline denomination,” I think most people hear “Lutherans are moderate and nonthreatening,” not “Lutherans are rich.” Don’t they? Am I misreading that terribly? The functional use of a word isn’t always very tightly related to its etymological history.

  • Elizabeth Coleman

    That’s the impression I always got. (Speaking as someone raised Catholic.) However, it wasn’t actually a term I paid any attention to until I was older. Prior to that, Protestants were Protestants, and even though I knew there were different denominations, I never cared about the interrelations between them.
    But now, I do tend to think mainline=”moderate and kind of boring, like the church in The Simpsons.”

  • Carstonio

    That’s how I read the term for the most part.

  • Cathy W

    I definitely equate “mainline” with “moderate and non-threatening”, but also with “the kind of place a ‘respectable’ white middle-class family goes” – a position of privilege, yes, but very different from the moneyed elites. (In my brain, I put Methodists, Presbyterians, and Lutherans in the ‘mainline’ box. Episcopalians, in my brain, may be moneyed elites, but are not “mainline Protestants”; Anglicans get their own box. And the circuit-riding fire-and-brimstone Methodist preachers of yore would probably sob to hear me call the denomination ‘non-threatening’)

  • Isabel C.

    Yep. A couple non-culturally-Christian friends asked me to explain the different Protestant denominations, and I also mentioned that–at least in my parents’ generation in the New England to Mid-Atlantic area–there was some economic association.

    Catholics are working-class. (Sometimes, especially in Boston, a local makes good.) Presbytarians/Methodists/Congregationalists are Respectable Middle-to-Upper-Class*.
    Lutherans are Respectable Working-to-Middle Class with Casseroles. And Jello.
    Episcopalians are Old Money.
    Baptists are Southern, Any Class, Also With the Casseroles.
    Everyone else is Weird.

    *Dad, who’s lapsed Presby on sin: “We don’t have sins. We have Things that Aren’t Done.”

  • stardreamer42

    I tend to think of it as meaning “not one of those hate-filled extremist churches”. Because I think it is used that way as an othering tactic by said hate-filled extremist churches.

  • tricksterson

    AFAICT “mainline Protesant” nowadays at least seems mostly to be used by the media and by evangelicals presicely to make them sound elitist as opposed to supposedly grassroots, working class, salt-of-the-earth evangelicals. My own experience is that the lines, social and economic are a lot less clear cut than that in both directions

  • Nathaniel


  • The_L1985


    Congrats! *hugs* Have some celebratory pie!

  • Baby_Raptor

    OMG! Congrats, babe! *celebratory hugs* (if you take hugs)

  • Nathaniel

    I take both hugs and pie! Pie is delicious, and affordable when you’re now working at 14$ an hour. And hugs are free.

  • Launcifer

    In that case, here’s a pie made of hugs! And congratulations, of course.

  • SKJAM!


  • Fusina

    YEEEEEEEHAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And what everyone else said as well!!!!!!!!!!

  • That Other Jean

    Woot! I’m happy for you–but probably not quite as happy as you are.

  • themunck

    Glad to hear :)

  • Daniel

    Ace! I hope it turns out to be at least twice as good as you hope it’ll be!

  • Seraph4377

    Hey, all. Wondering if you could help with a good cause. These little girls are selling lemonade to fund their daddy’s chemo.

    It shouldn’t be happening. But it is, and we need to help.

  • phranckeaufile

    I gave. But if this guy turns out to be another Walter White, I’m going to be pissed.

  • Oswald Carnes

    Breaking Bad as a reality series? I’m not sure how far off from that we are.

  • http://www.aeryllou.tumblr.com/ Aeryl

    Anybody watch SHIELD last night?

  • Jim Roberts

    Yep. I liked it. The humour was a little forced in parts, and the actors are clearly still trying to figure out their characters, but it has potential.

  • http://www.aeryllou.tumblr.com/ Aeryl

    Absolutely. Gregg’s the only one that has it nailed, and well he’s had the time to grow into the role.

  • Jim Roberts

    Calling it right now – Coulson’s an LMD.

  • http://www.aeryllou.tumblr.com/ Aeryl

    I’ve seen lots of interesting theories, one of them that he’s always been an android created by Howard Stark.

    One more mystery, YAY!

    Plus, I’m just relieved J. August Richards character survived the episode, I thought for sure he was a goner.

  • Jim Roberts

    First time in a while I’ve really been on tenterhooks about an incidental character’s fate.
    Last night was grand, though – SHIELD, Faceoff, and the premiere of Person of Interest. Television escapism at its finest.

  • Kubricks_Rube

    I haven’t watched yet but I read that J August Richards’s character is something of a mystery. Any chance he’s Gunn? That character would fit quite easily into this world.

  • Lori

    Not Gunn. I don’t want to be too detailed because people haven’t seen it yet and I can never get spoiler font to work here, but it’s not so much that JAR’s character is himself a mystery, it’s that he’s tied to a mystery. If that makes any sense. AFAICT the character is exactly who he appears to be. The questions are about the group he was, let’s say, affiliated with.

  • Kubricks_Rube

    Oh well. It would have been nice. I’m much more invested in the Whedonverse that the Marvelverse.

  • http://www.aeryllou.tumblr.com/ Aeryl

    Well, they are quickly becoming one in the same, so….

    It’s very Whedony, down to the quickly sketched archetypes that you can JUST TELL will get incredible characterization.

  • Lori

    They’re going to need to bring on the incredible characterization in a major hurry though, because most of the quickly sketched archetypes really were annoying. Thinking about it now I’m realizing that I don’t even remember the names of Hacker Girl and Macho Man and I fear that the Fitz/Simmons traveling roadshow is going to get on my last good nerve.

  • http://www.aeryllou.tumblr.com/ Aeryl

    I liked Fitz/Simmons, and think they’re unintelligibleness in intentional, but I know it’s turning some people off.

    Hacker Girl(Skye) and Macho Man(Ward) are leaving a lot to be desired, but I am really enjoying how they are also lampooning these archetypes while utilizing them(i.e. the idea that independent hackers can stay ahead of the resources government agencies can bring to bear, and that aggressive people who aren’t team players actually succeed in these agencies).

    In addition, the mystery of Coulson is a good hook, and JAR’s speech in the train station leaves me hope that there will be some allegorical exploration of economic class and social issues.

  • Lori

    My problem with Fitz/Simmons is that they’re way too cutsie for my taste. Stuff like that tends to turn me as bitter as 3 day old coffee.

    I join you in hoping that JAR’s speech is a good sign about the underlying ideas they’re working off of. The fact that it’s Whendon makes that seem likely.

  • Jim Roberts

    Buffy was what introduced me to feminism. If this show can introduce others to the underclass, I’m all for it.
    I didn’t care for Fitz/Simmons all that much, but I did like the interaction between Hacker Girl and Macho Guy in part because it showed that they’re really not at all different in anything other than their approach.
    Both of them want people to think that they’re awesome but, fer crissakes, don’t actually say it to their faces.

  • Jon Maki

    I haven’t watched it yet – it’s on my DVR waiting for my regular movie/recorded TV night with a friend (which may not happen this week because he’s sick) – but I have to say that I’m kind of annoyed that they actually made up new characters for the show at all. There are whole lot of S.H.I.E.L.D. agents to choose from in the comics, all with defined personalities and roles, that could have easily been adapted.
    That’s actually kind of annoyed me with the movies as well – only Fury and Hill were existing characters from the comics. And of course the Fury in the movies is the Nick Fury from the Ultimate line, not the mainstream MU.
    (They did introduce a more movie-like version of Fury in the MU – the bi-racial son of the original Nick Fury, though he’s not actually the one in charge – and they also introduced Coulson into the comics.)

  • Lori

    I can see why that would be annoying. On the other hand I can see why they’d go this route. If you make up your own characters no one can tell you that you’re doing them “wrong” and you don’t have to worry that the roles and personalities that others have defined will conflict with what you want to do in your story.

    It’s the classic problem of adaptation, and it’s a bigger problem for a TV show than for a movie. If a movie pisses off the hardcore fans it’s not good, but they’ve already paid to see it so it’s not fatal either. A TV show has to keep people coming back every week so the penalty for incurring the wrath of the fan base is far greater.

  • Jon Maki

    Yeah, I get that, but it doesn’t keep it from being annoying.
    I would have liked to have seen some of the really minor, background characters like, say, Gail Runciter, have an opportunity to make the leap off the page. (Especially since I haven’t seen her in the comics in decades. She may be dead, actually.)

    On a peripherally-related note, as I type this I’m waiting for a call from Staples to let me know that they’ve finished printing my first-ever comic book!

    It’s not for sale – it’s a birthday gift for someone – but it’s still kind of a big deal for me. Prior to this I’d never managed to complete even a single page of pencil art, let alone EIGHT inked, colored, and lettered pages.

    It’s not exactly “Watchmen” or even “Archie Meets The Punisher” (that really happened), but overall I’m really pleased with how it turned out.

    So…yay, me!

    I put it together in a rush (and in many places it shows), and spent most of my time winging it, as I ran into some keyboard issues that prevented me from writing the script up-front, but I finished it with time to spare (her birthday is next week).

    (I went with Staples for the printing, because printing it myself was proving challenging. Not so much the printing itself, but the trimming and binding. Online options would have taken too long, so…Staples.)

  • Lori

    Yay, you! That is so cool. I hope the birthday person truly appreciates it.

  • Jon Maki

    I fully anticipate that it will make her cry (in a good way).
    She tends to be the #1 fan of my artistic endeavors, especially when she’s the subject of them. She’s declared herself to be my muse, and she’s got a point. After all, I tend to be the #1 fan of her.

  • Jon Maki

    Picked up my printed copies! I couldn’t get glossy paper, but they still look great.
    Giddy Jon is giddy.

  • Lori

    I’m so glad it turned out well. Your giddiness is well-deserved.

  • Jamoche

    There’s also licensing issues – who gets paid when a character they created gets used in another media is a complicated situation that keeps lawyers in business.

  • Randall

    I would pay to see “the Adventures of Hacker Girl and Macho Man” made into a movie.

  • Lori

    Do you mean a movie with that title or a movie focused on Skye and Ward? If you mean the former I’m totally with you. For the latter, at most I’d wait for cable.

  • Randall

    Movie with the title. I don’t currently have TV so I have not seen the show and probably won’t. I’m kinda off Joss Whedon lately.

  • Lori

    That was my first thought, but then I asked why? His death served a specific purpose—it brought the Avengers together at a point when they had to be a team or fail. What specific purpose would a Coulson LMD serve for the Agents of Shield? These people don’t have such an attachment to Coulson that he’s necessary for them to build a team around. An LMD isn’t actually Coulson so it wouldn’t have any particular knowledge or insight that the team couldn’t get some other way. So, what’s the point of a Coulson LMD? Is it simply to prove the writers’ comics bona fides by demonstrating that they know about LMD? It better not be, because that would be annoying.

    Absent some better reason for him to be an LMD I’m thinking Coulson was saved by means he wouldn’t like (as opposed to by a long vacation in Taihiti). Could Thor have forced Loki to save him?

  • Jim Roberts

    It’s established that Coulson’s a top-tier agent. That alone might be good enough reason. “Darn, lost one of our finest agents. Better boot up the back-up copy.”

  • Lori

    Why? An LMD wouldn’t actually be Coulson. What does it bring to the table that they couldn’t get from another agent + a rousing speech about how they’ve already lost someone important and can’t allow others to meet the same fate or some such.

    Don’t get me wrong, I am 100% behind them wanting to keep Clark Gregg. I’d just like a reason for that in-story that doesn’t feel transparent or overly meta.

  • Jim Roberts

    The early model LMDs, sure, but the later model LMDs, incorporating some Stark Tech, were good enough that they fooled Nick Fury.

  • Lori

    I feel like I’m not expressing myself well. The issue isn’t whether the LMD could fool someone, it’s why it would matter if it could. What does pretending Coulson is alive get them that makes it worth it to lie their own people?

  • Jim Roberts

    I guess my counterpoint would be, what do they get out of actually having Coulson alive that makes it worth lying to their own people? You could argue something about the sanctity of life and it being the duty of all good people to yadda yadda, but this is SHIELD.

  • Lori

    Huh? Are you asking why Fury didn’t just kill Coulson for real (in the movie part of this story)? Yeah this is Shield, but I’m not sure that needs to be explained, even for Shield. If you can save your guy without sustaining unacceptable losses, you save your guy.

    Assuming Coulson isn’t a LMD they’re currently lying to Coulson about something, but they’re not lying to the rest of the team. There could be a number of reasons to do that. Like I said, the most obvious would seem to be that saving Coulson involved doing something that Coulson would find problematic. Made a deal with a bad guy. Used questionable or questionably obtained off-world tech. Something.

  • Jim Roberts

    That is an idea – if the show gives me another thing to hang my hat on, I’ll gladly give up the LMD concept, but I’m not currently seeing what they could’ve done to bring back Coulson that, according to Maria Hill, he can’t know about. He lives in a world of weird, so it’s just hard to conceive of something that would seriously drive him off the cliff.

  • Jamoche

    Top-secret semi-magic medical tech.

    I do love how Joss uses tech that’s just one step beyond what we’ve got – I just backed a kickstarter for a 3-d scanning device that attaches to iOS devices. OK, so it doesn’t float around the room, but still.

    I also call my 5-computer 6-monitor (2 shared) configuration here in my office the “full Tony Stark setup”. I want his computers *so bad*.

  • Jim Roberts

    I get the whole high-tech approach, but it’s pretty clear that this is more than just, “We used a PC to save his life and Coulson’s totally an Apple guy.”

  • FearlessSon

    The impression that I got is that the medical team did get to Coulson, did get him stabilized, and eventually he did recover. Nick Fury simply gave the Avengers a motivational lie to get the team to gel. That is why he brought up Coulson’s bloodstained trading cards, claiming that they were on the body when they were in fact in a locker at the time.

  • Lori

    Yeah, that was my impression from the movie as well. But from the show it’s obvious there was more to it than that. The question is, what?

  • DavidCheatham

    By ‘stabilized’, it could mean ‘kept his brain alive while they cloned a new body for him using alien tech and transferred his brain into it’. And then put in memories of six months of Tahiti to cover that.
    Or perhaps he was literally brought back from the dead. (And it’s worth pointing out that the MCU appears to be headed towards a confrontation with Thanos, which presumably will bring in Death herself. So perhaps there’s a _really_ long game being played here.)
    This is the Marvel universe, lots of stuff can happen in it.
    I don’t think he’s a LMD _of_ a real, dead Coulson, that makes no sense, although the idea that Coulson has _always_ been an android (Is it still called a life model decoy if there is not an original?) is a clever one and would work okay.

  • http://www.aeryllou.tumblr.com/ Aeryl

    There is even a literal line, in the post credits scene with Thanos, where The Other says, to attack Earth is to “court Death” and Thanos gets a very large smile on his face.

  • VMink

    I’m a little fuzzy on remembering The Avengers, but… did Nick Fury actually tell the proto-Avengers that Coulson was dead? I mean, that’s Fury-level dickish manipulation if he strongly implied it, and not the worst thing he’s done. But it would make sense that if Coulson was an excellent agent, they’d still need to keep him active, but couldn’t risk any of the Avengers finding out he was still alive.

    If that’s the case, Coulson’s on a permanent witness protection program and he can’t ever go back. Man, I hope he didn’t have much in the way of family…

    (There is a comic on DeviantArt that postulates — in a silly manner — that Sarah from Labyrinth is Phil Coulson’s neice, that he knows about Jareth’s infatuation with her, and that if she ever gets tired of his shenanigans, he can ‘do something about him.’ The comic is kind of funny all in all, but it’s also problematic for obvious creepy-Jareth-stalker stuff, though they do bring that up. Plus, Jareth’s Pants.)

  • Lori

    Fury didn’t say flat out that Coulson was dead, but he strongly implied it. Whether or not that requires Coulson to continue to play dead depends on how much you think it would anger the Avengers to realize Fury played them. I tend to think they’d get over it.

    Also, working for the same employer, using the same name is really weak sauce Witness Protection, so I assume Shield doesn’t feel any strong need to keep it a secret that Coulson is still around.

  • Cathy W

    They did imply that the continued existence of Coulson is known only to those at a fairly high security clearance. I guess it depends on how good their information security actually is.

  • http://web.me.com/czedwards/CZEdwards/Blog/Blog.html C.Z. Edwards

    The line from the film is “Phil Coulson died still believing in that idea.” So yes, Nick Fury says he’s dead. (I had the film running background this afternoon and just checked.)

    I note Nick Fury’s similarity to The Doctor: Rule 1: He lies.

  • Isabel C.

    Well, “died” and “stayed dead” are two different things, as Whedon has played with before.

  • Lori

    I watched it and liked it OK, but didn’t love it. I actually found several of the characters rather annoying and I’m not sure if I was just being cranky*, or if it was an acting thing or if there are actual characterization issues that I’m just not going to enjoy.

    But yea! for J. August Richards surviving the ep. I’ve missed him.

    *I’m absolutely willing to believe it’s me because I’m having the same “can’t quite decide, sort of intrigued but also rather annoyed” reaction to Sleepy Hollow. I can’t decide if the American Exceptionalism on steroids premise totally kills it for me, or if I’m going to be able to sort of set that to the side and just roll with the rest of the story.

  • Hth

    I feel the same way, and I’m hoping that it’s just the typical stiltedness that tends to happen in pilot episodes, and that the actors and writers will all settle into more normal human patterns as we go on.

    I think it didn’t help that Richards was *so* good. He came off like the only believable dude in the episode, and he’s the guest star. You don’t really want your main cast to get upstaged right out of the gate. I finished the episode mainly bummed that he won’t be back next week.

  • Lori

    They really should bring JAR back as at least recurring.

  • http://www.aeryllou.tumblr.com/ Aeryl

    I hope they do! He can join full time!

  • Lori

    At this point I can say for sure I’d be more likely to watch if they did.

  • DavidCheatham

    I feel the same way, and I’m hoping that it’s just the typical stiltedness that tends to happen in pilot episodes, and that the actors and writers will all settle into more normal human patterns as we go on.

    Joss Whedon pilots are always a bit stilted, considering how much of his humor is from character interactions. Especially when they have to set up the premise of the show and don’t have a lot of time to go into character interactions.

  • Isabel C.

    I liked it for the most part (and provisionally love Sleepy Hollow, though I have the sideeye ready in case it takes a sharp turn into ERMEGERD FREHDERM, because American Revolution plus Fox is ominous) but “Skye” (pfft) bugged the living shit out of me and my co-watching friend.

    Which is sort of ironic, because in the RL parallel, I think we’re both on her side–and might have been so in show if they’d gotten a face for that side which wasn’t quite so…freshman. (“Ugh. Fine, just…BE nineteen then. But go do it elsewhere.”)

  • Lectorel

    A friend liveblogged their reactions to it – it sounds a little to whitebread to interest me.

  • http://www.aeryllou.tumblr.com/ Aeryl

    Is this a reference to the cast being too white? Or the show too bland?

    As far as being bland, I’ll give it that, but only because it’s a pilot.

    The cast COULD definitely be more diverse, but both Skye and May are WOC, and the first major guest stars were both MOC*, so I hope it continues to improve.

    *Not only was J. August Richards there, so is Ron Glass.

  • Donalbain

    SPOILERS!! Please…

  • http://www.aeryllou.tumblr.com/ Aeryl

    You want them? Or you want them tagged?

  • Donalbain

    Tag them. Please. I don’t know about the rest of the world, but it doesn’t show in the UK until Friday. Spoiler policy should be followedl

  • Lori

    I think it’s too late. There are no detailed spoilers in the thread, but things have been discussed that the spoiler-averse wouldn’t want to know. You may just want to bail on the thread. So sorry. I forgot my spoiler manners because I’m not in a place where they’re typically necessary.

  • Baby_Raptor

    I read about the Klayman thing on Joemygod yesterday. Dude listed a whole bunch of things that aren’t crimes and then announced that he and his tens of friends that will show up are going to make Obama leave town or face jail time for them.

    I wish they’d just say “We don’t like him because he’s black” and get it over with already. Their excuses, lies and martyrbation are getting *really* old.

  • Seraph4377

    Martyrbations. That’s a good word. I may just have to use that.

    And I really hope he tries. Not only would it be hilarious, but there are a lot of wingnuts out there who think that the whole nation would rise up with them if they just stand their ground with their guns, and it would be nice for them to learn that they’re wrong.

  • Baby_Raptor

    The question is, would it sink in?

    I mean, you’d think they’d have learned they were wrong when we overwhelmingly re-elected Obama.

  • Lori

    They told themselves that Obama stole the election(s). When the country doesn’t rise up to support their hateful delusions they’ll tell themselves that the sheepeople are all afraid and/or that Obama’s henchpeople have threatened them with FEMA camps. Learning from actual evidence is not really their thing.

  • Seraph4377

    Good question. The belief in the “Silent Majority”, even if they don’t use the term anymore, remains strong. They probably think that ACORN rigged the election somehow.

    Still, it’s hard to argue if the millions of people you expect just don’t show up.

  • Daniel

    “The Silent Majority” as well as their own martyrbation (see Baby_Raptor? Shameless.) follow the belief in omartyr- speaking out about by saying “what everybody else thinks” is bound to get them pilloried, and oppressed, because ridicule and oppression are exactly the same thing.

  • Daniel

    Martyrbation is an excellent word. I shall shamelessly steal it from you.

  • Baby_Raptor

    Have at it!

  • Veylon

    The really pathetic thing is how cowardly it all is. If they were facing real consequences – as Gandhi and Mandela faced – it would be one thing to talk this up. It would be heroic and gutsy to come into the heart of power of The Enemy and challenge him to his face knowing that prison and police beatings awaited them.

    But they’re not. They talk all big and bold only because they are not facing a police state. There’s no risk involved to them. If they were talking about, say, occupying a military base – peacefully – until Obama called off military action against Syria then, that would be something. If they, en masse, refused to pay taxes until their demands were met, that would be something. But all those things would require putting their asses on the line – as their heroes Jefferson and Washington did – and risk something bad happening to them as a result. But without that element of personal self-sacrifice and willingness to face danger, they have no legitimacy; leaders lead by being out front, not by yelling about things from a safe distance.

  • Carstonio

    This reminds me of “Gentleman’s Agreement” except that it’s a much more personal story of empathy:


  • chgo_liz

    Wow. Powerful.

  • http://mordicaifeed.tumblr.com/ Mordicai

    It pains me to admit it, because I adore “The Neverhood,” but Doug TenNapel is a pretty bigoted guy. Sad.

  • MikeJ

    “I have bigger things to worry about than wrongly attributed statements.” – Abraham Lincoln

  • Rhubarbarian82

    …demand that he leave town and resign from office if he does not want to face prison time” for pushing “his Muslim, socialist, anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, anti-white, pro-illegal immigrant, pro-radical gay and lesbian agenda.”

    Klayman, who has repeatedly called for a revolution, claims that demonstrations will use the same tactics as Mahatma Gandhi and Egyptian protesters…

    This is ironic, right? This counts as irony?

  • Cathy W

    If Klayman encourages his followers to spin, weave, and sew their own garments, maybe they’ll be busy enough to stay out of trouble…

  • Winter

    They’d never go for it since that’s women’s work (well, sewing probably is to them, don’t know if they think about the other two at all). I personally think sewing is useful enough that everyone should learn it if able.

    Maybe it’s just the shape of the “y” in this font, but I keep wanting to read that name as Klansman.

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    2: Ugh, saw a handful of these people last weekend. The best one had a picture of Obama with a Hitler mustache.

    6: The pope just excommunicated a priest for his pro-gay and women’s ordination activism, too…

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    The Pope should excommunicate himself. (spot the Revolution reference…)

    Warning: TVtropes link. :)

  • Turcano

    The thing about “liberty” is that it means different things to different people. The religious right takes its notions of liberty from the Puritans.

  • g

    It doesn’t look to me as if that recipe is actually Lewis’s — isn’t it merely inspired by Lewis’s tastes?

  • tricksterson

    Anyone else amused that Clayman is citing, among others, Ghandi (Hindu, at least nominally) the Egyptian protesters (aside from the Copts, every bit as Muslim as those they’re protesting against), Franklin (deist) and Jefferson (deist) as role models?