Link Roundup!

by Nicole Cliffe · December 5, 2013

5web

This is a link for horse people, but anyone who likes making fun of fashion poses that would result in real-life disaster, broken tack, and massive vet bills is welcome too.

*

Did you watch Danny Castellano’s dance scene on The Mindy Project? Can we talk about it forever?

*

Katherine Joyce, who is writing incredible stuff, like, seriously incredible stuff this year, which I would beg her to write for us were she not already famous, has now written about The Homeschool Apostates. This is also about a very particular kind of homeschooler, many homeschooling parents are not fronts for the armed evangelical invasion of America.

*

The Smithsonian Magazine blog, which is always great, looks at early HIV/AIDS posters from the 1980s (the ones that were amazing and the ones that weren’t helping diddly-squat.)

*

How to make snakes less awful. Sorry snakes (I’m not sorry.)

*

Well, this is some hot nonsense. If you’re coming up on your free NY Times article quota: the unarmed mentally ill guy from Times Square in September? They’ve charged him with assault because the NYPD shot those two bystanders when they thought he was going for a gun (he wasn’t.)

*

Also, Nigella Lawson is a grown-ass woman and I’d do coke too if I were married to a guy who treated me like that.

*

30 new pictures from Sherlock s3. I will be ranking the episodes of Sherlock in a post next week, you can try to sway me to your allegiances at the current time, but I make no promises to please.

*

Don’t tell me if this picture isn’t real, okay?

*

Tags: , ,

Related Posts

Nicole Cliffe

Nicole Cliffe

More from Nicole Cliffe →

90 Comments

  1. daisymap +9

    Though I maintain my position on Ike Bariholtz as the most attractive man on television (I am Spartacus) I will concede that that dance was the first time I caught a small glimpse of the appeal of old Castellano.

    1. Amy +1

      So sad “The Mindy Project” is going on hiatus. It’s the only series I’m watching right now (at least until “Mad Men” comes back). I probably need to expand my TV horizons a bit more.

    2. ach_so +6

      I love Danny Castellano, and the dance was amazing, but there is NO chemistry between him & Mindy!

    3. madgehowlet +4

      While I will not stand with you on Bariholtz (he seems fun, though!), I am with you on whatever happened during that dance routine. I was mesmerized, while narrating my mesmerization to myself. I don’t like the character overmuch, I have no feelings whatsoever about the actor, and I don’t really like the song. And yet, it was magical.

    4. bluewindgirl

      I’m sorry, I find Morgan viscerally upsetting in an undefinable way (wait I just defined it it’s because his teeth look like slices of bread). I’m not ordinarily a devoted Danny acolyte (between this and New Girl I think we can declare that our demographic must love small surly dark haired men) but that was a damn sexy dance.

  2. lyetteann +16

    The caption on that last one (“In Soviet Russia, it actually is lupus”) made me cackle.

  3. mystique +3

    First, Nicole, I know no one likes the Blind Banker, but I found out the writer that did The Reichenbach Fall wrote that one too, so I wondered why it was so off. Well, I found this article and it analyzes how the Blind Banker examines annoying but needed growing pains in the Sherlock/John relationship. It made me enjoy the Blind Banker much more, even the whole series, because it made me see the Sherlock/John relationship as a progression rather than a given.

    The plotting is off partly because Moffat’s the best plotter ever, so it’s a hard comparison, but then he is really not as good in relationship building. Also, the Orientalism and otherness undertones are frustrating, but more based on the fact that every character on the show is white, and bringing people of color on puts that fact in sharp relief.

    1. BellaG +11

      Well, there are also a few utterly glaring holes here and there, like “zomg, Sarah’s tied to a chair and there’s a countdown to a projectile that will shortly kill her! How can we save her?!” You could…move her chair four inches to the left. Sarah could…use her body weight to overturn the chair, thus taking her out of the line of fire, while she waits for someone to rescue her.

      I don’t hate the episode (I don’t particularly like it, but I don’t hate it), but the climactic scene was ridiculous.

      1. super_novice +1

        RIGHT? That whole scene that’s all I was thinking. And Watson waits till the very, very last second before trying to shuffle while tied to his chair. Why would he have not done that sooner?

      2. BourneApprox +8

        Not as glaring as the problems with Mycroft’s “AMAZING SECRET SCHEME!” in A Scandal in Belgravia. Fill the plane with dead people and let the terrorists blow it up? That’s brilliant! But…what happens when everyone notices that there’s no public list of victims? Are the folks investigating the crash in on the scheme? If they are, why fly it full of bodies in the first place? Buh- wha- gah! To me, Moffat’s stuff always seems clever on the surface, and then falls apart when you look at it even a little closely. To say nothing of the gender and race stuff. (So why am I still looking forward to goddamn Season 3 so much?!?!)

        1. briliantmistake +8

          Moffat’s really the king of fridge logic (If Moriarty is so concerned with the blind woman hearing his voice, why strap a bomb to a blind woman in the first place?). I find him incredibly frustrating because he is so clever and inventive, but ultimately betrayed by his weird hang-ups, particularly those regarding women. The Blind Banker doubles down on the offensiveness scale by throwing orientalism into the mix. It’s like hearing a pretty piece of music that randomly throws in sour notes. You could be so much better, Moffat! Isn’t there some sort of perspective readjustment camp we could send him to?
          That said, I’ll be watching the new series because of Bananapie Krullercrack (obs), the Freeman-stache, and the 80% or so of Moffat that doesn’t sprain my eye-rolling muscles.

    2. antigonewiththewind +15

      Moffat’s the best plotter ever

      Just out of curiousity, do you watch Doctor Who, too? I see this opinion in conversations about Sherlock a lot, and I always wonder if the people who think that have seen Moffat’s seasons of DW, since there his plotting can be kind of…lacking.

      1. mystique

        You know, I haven’t been watching Doctor Who just because of how bad they’ve been! So I know he’s not perfect, but he’s pretty amazing at certain twists and turns, and he used to be ace at suspense to make up for it. I saw “used to be” because with Clara, I was just not interested anymore. It felt like Amy all over again, but without Karen Gillan’s Scottish accent and Rory’s funny character development, and with the sexist ideas of a female companion who doesn’t hold down a job, is super sassy, and nothing else.

        I hope he leaves sooner rather than later, but after getting annoyed at his sexist and heteronormative turns on the Doctor, I’ve actually started watching 10’s run which seems so, so much better in comparison.

        1. msjinxie +12

          My theory on Moffat is that he IS quite talented…when he’s got some very strict parameters to work in. Sherlock does 3-episode “seasons”, so he’s working with time constraints, plus he has source material that he can’t veer too far from, and the end result is pretty great. And his writing on DW, when RTD was still showrunner, was fantastic – Moffat wrote some of my favorite episodes. Left to his own devices for a long period of time, though, he gets sloppy.

      2. BellaG

        Maybe he’s hit or miss? I love his episodes of Sherlock, and he also did Jekyll, which I thought was amazing.

        I’ve never been a Doctor Who fan, though (I watched the first season because I love Christopher Eccleston, but when he was done, so was I.), so I can’t really speak to that one.

    1. mbculver +7

      It makes him look like the cad in a 1930s-era Agatha Christie mystery.

      (That’s code for, I’m kinda diggin’ it.)

  6. Shannon +12

    Thank you for mentioning the Smithsonian Magazine! I absolutely love it and it never fails to be fascinating, but looking at the ads, I feel like I’m the only person under 65 reading the darn thing… “here’s a phone with only three buttons! I don’t need my grandkids to run it!”

  7. icebergmama +12

    I want those open front boots from the horsey link though. Also I love the lil snake pimp, and agree 100% about Nigella. Honey, do all the coke if it helps you.

    1. icebergmama +14

      also another way to make snakes less awful is to make them be shoes or handbags.

      sorry not sorry

      1. Julie the T +1

        Aw, c’mon. Sherlock’s a robot and she got him to feel something. That’s how I choose to see this ep. Also, Sherlock = not noted for its strong female characters…I’d argue that’s not really why we watch it.

        (And because I uttered the words “strong female characters,” these ladies just appeared): http://harkavagrant.com/index.php?id=311

        1. themegnapkin +14

          The misogyny isn’t in the Conan Doyle story, though – it’s all Moffat. A Scandal in Belgravia rubbed me very wrong.

          1. mystique +2

            Hmm…it may be frustrating that Irene was working with Moriarty, but 2-3 other villains were also traced back to Moriarty. It was annoying initially, but it made sense after the end of the series.

            Also, Irene may be a lesbian, but remember, Sherlock overheard this conversation with John earlier:
            John: If anyone’s listening, I’m not gay!
            Irene: Well, I am. So we both have our exceptions, don’t we?
            It’s not that Holmes is so great — she’s an exception to his rule too, to not get entangled in romance.

            I read the SH series when I was really young, and I was always frustrated that every new iteration of her just set her up as a love interest with nothing to do. There was some ingrained sexism in how Sherlock talked about women in the original too — that Irene was smart “unlike most of her sex.”

          2. walkingthecow +6

            Most of the time they shouldn’t be compared, because they’re two very different types of shows (I think they’re both fine) but the depiction of Irene is something Elementary did magnitudes better than Sherlock.

          3. BourneApprox +12

            Re Irene Adler and Sherlock Holmes and not being sexist, I’m just gonna sit here and quietly shout ELEMENTARY FOREVER.

            Because seriously, ugh. Belgravia nearly killed my love of the show. Let’s modernize the story…oo, make her a sexy sex dominatrix who uses sex as a weapon! She’s clever…but no, in the end she’s just a pawn of Moriarty! And she neeeeeeeeds Sherlock (“I AM SHERLOCKED” ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME), who is confused by this thing you humans call love, despite her declaring herself gay earlier. And then he rescues her from evil terrorists in a turban with a sword and what the fuck. Also, Mycroft’s plan makes no sense. RAGE. It’s a good thing that the Reichenbach Falls episode was so super-duper.

          4. MilesofMountain +7

            I had a bit of an argument with my sister over that. She insisted she liked Moffat’s Irene because she was a sex worker portrayed as a regular person, but I thought it was the complete opposite. It seemed to me like everything about her was focused on sex and titilation, rather than her just being a regular person who does sex work.

            (I loved Elementary’s Irene, too)

  9. mollpants +8

    KATHRYN JOYCE IS KILLIN’ 2013. Is her book out yet??!!? All of her stuff on this topic is FASCINATING

    1. emily_white +1

      The Child Catchers is definitely out now–I have seen it at my local bookstore and lusted after it. I sat in a different bookstore for hours to read her book about Quiverfullers when it came out and I was a poor student, but I feel bad about doing that at my lovely independent store now.

  11. SSVerity +9

    “Not only are parents in 26 states not required to have their children tested but in 11 states, they don’t have to inform local schools when they’re withdrawing them. The states that require testing and registration often offer religious exemptions.”

    At this point in the article, my neck almost broke due to the extreme angle at which my head tilted. I know some kids who grew up homeschooled, and I am really, really glad that their parents were hippie liberal types.

    1. naglayaxuliganka +6

      This article is just so sad and so terrifying on so many levels. Many of which are relevant to my family and people I knew growing up in the midwest.

    2. ipomoea +3

      I was definitely homeschooled by a hippie liberal type, but when we got involved with the local homeschooling organization, we were the tiny tiny minority. The family we worked with most often ended up having NINE children. NINE. (though they all seem to be functioning adults including one with both a MD and MBA and the girls all went to real colleges.) IIRC, my state is pretty insistent that homeschooled kids get tested, and as a homeschooled kid, I was able to use resources at my local elementary school, like the gym and music classes. The district now has a stand-alone building of nothing but homeschool resources because the homeschool community is so large.

      1. urwelt +6

        Ugggh, that’s so frustrating that people are able to hijack a public service like that. I know public schools are far, far from perfect, but those resources should be benefitting ALL students in the district, not just the minority whose parents with the ability and inclination to homeschool them.

        1. Step On It, Velma! +4

          In what way is that hijacking a public service? I’m really wondering, if the homeschool building is only offering resources that the public school offers, who is being hurt?

    3. mbculver +13

      Most of the homeschooled kids I know were not subject to this kind of terrible treatment, whether their parents are more conservative or veer towards the hippie/liberal.

      I also want to say here that this kind of behavior, done in the name of Christianity, is NOT CHRISTIAN. It’s abusive, patriarchical bullshit. Many of us Christians don’t believe in mistreating young people (especially women) in some misguided attempt to keep them “pure” and obedient. Maybe we need to get that word out better.

      1. Alli525 +4

        Thank you! I hate saying “well I’m a Christian but I’m not crazy,” as if the MAJORITY of Christians are total nutbags. Just seems that way since the nutbags are so vocal.

      2. SSVerity +9

        I’m an atheist, but I have plenty of Christian/Catholic/Jewish friends and family of various denominations. And most of them are not crazy (well, not crazy in terms of their belief or practice of their religion, anyway).

        And I totally get that this sort of behavior is not Christian – by no means do I lump all Christians (or religious folks in general) in with the crazies. I think Colbert said it best:

      3. Jessie +26

        I get what you’re saying: you find this type of abuse spiritually repugnant and don’t want it associated with the religion that you love, but, no. It IS Christian. I was actually raised in this subculture, the homeschooling, the patriarchy, the courtship, the child abuse cults–all of it. We were Christian just like we were Americans. That’s what it was. You don’t get to rewrite my cultural identity for me. If you say “people who do bad things aren’t real Christians” you’re redefining Christianity to mean “good person” instead of a person who subscribes to a particular religious philosophy. That’s not really fair either. The things that happened to me weren’t okay and I am very glad you don’t support them, but they weren’t “unchristian”. They came from people who had a very deep commitment to Jesus and Christianity and the Bible, as an expression of that commitment. Just because the patriarchical bullshit was more virulent in this particular sect of Christianity doesn’t mean it isn’t present in others. And this is hardly an insignificant minority. We are talking about millions of people.

        1. broodinghunx +5

          ‘If you say “people who do bad things aren’t real Christians” you’re redefining Christianity to mean “good person” instead of a person who subscribes to a particular religious philosophy.’

          THANK YOU.

    4. EPWordsnatcher +8

      Here’s what I don’t get about the whole super-fundamentalist hyper-control homeschooling: what is the end game for these kids? The parents are raising these girls to be “pure” and naive (“18 going on 12” is how it’s described in the article, the older sister was forbidden from dating even when she went off to college, etc.), but how do they expect them to ever be…adults? Getting married, having and raising kids, being a functional adult even in a super-fundamentalist culture (I am assuming here) does appear to require some degree of mental maturity, and I’m really unclear about when they expect these girls to acquire that.

      2. MilesofMountain +4

        I think they are supposed to be very organized and responsible (so, able to run a house) but unable to function outside that sphere. Their husband will take care of things like hiring a plumber, or buying a car, or doing the taxes or deciding where to live, and outside of replicating their childhood with their own children, the women are to remain “charmingly” useless.

      3. instafish +2

        One example of an answer to your question is the story in this article: “Child Marriage and the Rest of the Maranatha Story” http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2013…

        It’s about a 15 year old girl raised in this type of family being married to a 27 year old man selected by her family. Then in 2008, her 16 year old daughter was married to a 26 year old man under similar circumstances.

        Key line: “Then, at one point, he (her father) told her, “Sweetheart, all your life you have submitted to me, trusted me, and followed me, and you have done this well. But, when Matthew comes and takes you, all of that transfers over to him, even if that means he leads you in ways that vary from how I would do things.” And when I went to get her, she followed her dad’s final lead right into my headship of her. Wow! Did I walk into a good deal or what?!”

    5. phlippin +2

      It’s really bizarre how issues of extreme self-determination in raising kids (homeschooling, anti-vaxers) make buddies out of both ends of the political spectrum, Christian fundies and uber-liberal hippies, isn’t it?

    6. MilesofMountain +1

      I also was raised in a hippie liberal home where homeschooling was one of the educational tools that got brought out occasionally (used for short periods of time, or a few years, or just for certain subjects, or as a work-around to allow us to skip a grade etc). I grew up in a super hippie liberal town, too, so I don’t think I ever met any of the fundie-type homeschoolers and we certainly never got pamphlets on godliness from any of the homeschooling groups. I was really surprised when years later I found out that they were the main category of homeschoolers elsewhere.

  12. mkpatter +8

    That dance scene made watching every week of Mindy WORTH IT, because damn is that show inconsistent.

    1. phlippin +9

      Right? I feel like the show is a reverse Monet: Up close it’s got brilliant writing and great moments, but from far away its plotting and tone are a big old mess.

    2. mystique

      It’s so true! I’m getting to the point where I’ve stopped caring. I wish Mindy would date more interesting people. Josh and Casey were interesting foils last season, but she’s been dating pretentious jerks all season and it’s a little…repetitive and boring. Also, I’m lukewarm on every character except her and Danny.

    3. paperbgprincess +1

      I want to like that show way more than I actually do. And apparently Mindy and I have total opposite taste in dudes, because I have been 100% uninterested in every single one of them except Danny.

  13. Jessica_Messica +16

    What turns me on more: Danny Castellano doing 90’s R&B choreography or Danny Castellano looking over his Sally Jesse Raphael glasses while reading a blog giving us a youngold Mandy Patinkin vibe

  14. missellabell +16

    I just love Nigella absolutely. “People who do that are a lot thinner than I am” I LOVE YOU.

      1. TARDIStime +1

        But seriously, if I could do pot with anyone it would be her. HOW GOOD WOULD IT BE TO GET THE MUNCHIES WITH HER AROUND!?!?!

  15. dakimel +6

    Aw, come on, half those snakes are ball pythons, which is the kind of snake I had in college, and did I ever tell you guys the story about driving 2000 miles home from college with a snake as my passenger?

    2. Es_Petal +6

      No, but please do! My sister used to have a snake who lived in my bedroom because I was the only one who didn’t mind sleeping with the light on for her tank. I regularly used to wake up with her in my bed because it was warmer.

    3. dakimel +6

      Okay, there are many aspects to Mel’s Life With Snake, but here are some key points:

      * my college BF & I got her as a shared pet because we were in looooooove and what better way to express that but via reptile ownership?, but he lived in CA and I lived in TX and then we both went to Europe for a year abroad and his family was not amenable to minding her for that time.

      * We named her Finnegan Snake. Of course we did.

      * We lived in the dorms. She often escaped.

      * During the drive, she was in a pillowcase in a box, but I took her out at pit stops. Especially when I was all alone in the middle of the desert-nowhere that is large portions of Texas and there were rough-looking characters + me (and my snake!) in the gas station parking lots.

      * Sometimes I hooked her around my waist, and her tail would curl around her neck and she’d just sit there like a belt. A snakeskin belt. A live snakeskin belt.

  18. AmazingSandwich +7

    All those horses are saints.

    Edit to add: it was funny how the horse choices were clearly dichotomous: your fancy model can have a complementary SLEEK FANCY horse, or a contrasting LOVEABLE SCRUFFY horse. Pick A or B.

    1. abbeyroadmedley +1

      I saw that! Absolutely amazing. He must have been so terrified — and then the diver who found him, thinking he was only going to find bodies, to suddenly have a hand grab him?

      “I’m the cook!” “They always survive.” 🙂

  20. blushingflower +3

    Is it wrong that my reaction to “try to ride in mittens and get frustrated because you can’t hold the reins” was “but what if you ride Western? (caveat, it has been almost 20 years since I last rode a horse, and I only ever did Western reins on one) Also I can’t help but wonder about the trainers/handlers because some of the things in those photos would are really stupid ideas and those must be some really docile and agreeable horses. Damnit, now I want to go riding.

    1. GreenGrasses

      I had the BEST riding dream last night so now I’ve been jonesin’ all day. Too bad I live in a city 🙁 Anyway, yes, you could probably ride alright Western with mittens, but (and I’ve only ever been and English rider) I feel like a big part of Western would be how you hold the reins with your fingers so the horse can feel your hands and you can feel its mouth? Dunno, but I still love love love equestrian editorials because it’s a wonderful fantasy to be in the barn with stilettos and a jumping riderless horse!

  21. actualmeg +2

    Oh my god, how have I not read everything Kathryn Joyce has ever written? She is FANTASTIC. (Also, she has links to all her published articles on her website, so I know how I’ll be slacking off the rest of the afternoon.)

  22. Fair_Amoret +8

    Re Castellano, I have this to say about that: It was a good thing I got some later that night, is all.

  23. bustedsneakers +4

    Real Talk: Okay, YOU stop them eating with the bridle on. GO ON. I DARE YOU. *wrassles a greased Shetland*

    1. RubeksCube +4

      The name of my first pet came from this movie. I still occasionally say “solid gold hubcaps” when I approve of something. I have no regrets.