Fashion Friday: Cat-Eye Glasses

So that whole “uglyass librarian” thing has gotten me pondering a fashion question I’ve pondered many times: What is it about cat-eye glasses?

I’m kind of fascinated by how iconic mine have become. I play it up a bit, obviously: I picked a blog banner that conspicuously incorporated them as a graphic element. But they were iconic even before that. I don’t think the designer would have put them into the blog banner if they hadn’t already been iconic. And I’m fascinated — and a little baffled — at the strong reactions they seem to evoke. When it comes to cat-eye glasses, people seem to love them or hate them. I get effusive compliments on mine on a regular basis; I’ve actually been stopped on the street by total strangers telling me they adore my glasses. But I’ve also had total strangers tell me that my glasses are horrible and seriously detract from my appearance. (One guy even emailed me out of the blue to tell me that my glasses made me look like a character in a Gary Larson cartoon. He apparently thought I’d see that as a negative thing.)

They seem to provoke oddly strong feelings. I’m sure there are exceptions — I’m sure there are many people who are entirely neutral on the subject of cat-eye glasses — but a disproportionate number of people seem to either love them or hate them. Some people think they’re the pinnacle of snarky glamour, and even find them totally hot. Others think they’re the total antithesis of glamour and hotness. A fashion item that sucks glamour and hotness right off your face.

What’s that about? [Read more…]

Talisker Saying, “Baroo?”

Ingrid and I are going through serious withdrawal. We basically adopted three kittens yesterday, but we can’t take them home until next week. So to console myself, I’m posting more pictures, until we can have the actual furry monsters in our actual home. (At which point, the cat photos on this blog will naturally cease. Yeah, right. Dream on.)

This is Talisker, saying, “Baroo?”

Bayes Theorem: Key to the Universe: Richard Carrier’s Talk at Skepticon 4

In honor of Richard Carrier joining up with the Freethought Blogs network — you will be assimilated, resistance is futile — today’s video from Skepticon 4 is Carrier’s talk: Bayes Theorem: Key to the Universe. (Referred to on Carrier’s blog as Bayes Theorem: Lust for Glory.)

What can I say? This is a really good idea, one that can help skeptics and others better understand how likely it is that a given hypothesis is true. It is a powerful tool. And Carrier spells it out for the intelligent layperson: clearly, entertainingly, not dumbing it down but not talking over our heads, either. I wished I’d had more than four hours of sleep the night before (Saturday night at Skepticon is a harsh mistress), since there were bits that I didn’t quite follow — but that was due to the mushiness of my own brain at the moment, and not at all to Carrier’s presentation. Which was excellent, and will amplify your brain power until it’s a superhuman killing machine. Or something. Enjoy!

Welcome Richard Carrier to Freethought Blogs!

Please welcome Richard Carrier to Freethought Blogs!

Richard Carrier is the renowned author of Sense and Goodness without God and Not the Impossible Faith as well as numerous articles online and in print. His avid fans span the world from Hong Kong to Poland. With a Ph.D. in ancient history from Columbia University, he specializes in the modern philosophy of naturalism, the origins of Christianity, and the intellectual history of Greece and Rome, with particular expertise in ancient philosophy, science and technology. He has also become a noted defender of scientific and moral realism, Bayesian reasoning, and the epistemology of history.

His blog is titled Richard Carrier Blogs. Sheesh. What a pathetically unimaginative title for a blog. Just your name, and the word “blog”? Put a little imagination into it, dude…

#mencallmethings: “pathetic attention seeker”

From Facebook:

“Fuck you Greta. You’re the troll. You posted for the sole reason of trying to bait a sexist into writing something threatening. You didn’t find one, but I dared to disagree with you, so you and your brainless followers thought ‘eh, fuck it, close enough. We’ll attack him instead.’ You’ve been capitalizing on this for months and perpetuating vicious stereotypes about both men and women, under the guise of ‘feminism’. I used to think you had something to contribute. Now I see you’re just a pathetic attention seeker who isn’t interested in anything other than stirring up shit.”


Apparently, writing professionally = pathetic attention seeking.

It’s also apparently the case that pointing out instances of hostile, entitled misogyny = trying to bait a sexist into writing something threatening. And that writing opinions about feminism and gender that this guy doesn’t agree with = perpetuating vicious stereotypes. But what’s really jumping out at me about this one is the whole “capitalizing on this,” “pathetic attention seeker,” “stirring up shit” thing. Because when professional female writers write things that a particular man agrees with, we have something to contribute… but when we say things this particular man doesn’t agree with, it’s just a self-serving attempt to get attention.

It couldn’t be that we want our voices heard for the same reasons anyone wants their voices heard. You know — because we think we have something valuable to say, something we think people want and/or need to hear. And even if we have regular readers numbering in the thousands, that doesn’t give any support to the conceited notion that we have something valuable to say that people want and/or need to hear. We’re basically just jumping up and down screaming, “Look at me, look at me, look at me!” Pathetic.

On the other hand… KITTENS!

Everyone — meet Talisker, Comet, and Houdini.




We don’t have them in our home yet. We have friends who do cat and kitten fostering: these pics were taken at their place, where we were introduced to the kitties and fell stupidly in love. We’re bringing them home next week.

We were just going to get two, I swear. But we fell in love with Houdini (the tortoise shell)… and yet we couldn’t bear to split up the two silver tabbies. Also, we were attached to the idea of having two small boingy kittens… and Houdini is somewhat older, five months, and past her boingy stage. Hence: three kittehs.


You may not get much sensible blogging out of me for the next few days. Weeks. Months. Years. You’ve seen that XKCD cartoon about how intelligence declines in proportion to proximity to cats? That’s me and Ingrid. Ever since last night, we have been virtually unable to say anything intelligible, other than, “KITTEHS!”

Oh, and Jen McCreight: Watch your back. Your kitten-based blog traffic is mine. Pixel is awfully darned cute… but we are about to have three. I will pwn you. Pwn you with kittens. Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha!

Want more? of course you do. After the jump. [Read more…]

The Heretic’s Guide to Mormonism: David Fitzgerald’s Talk at Skepticon 4

David Fitzgerald will make you laugh yourself hoarse. And he knows his history backwards and forwards. His talk at Skepticon 4 — an exposition/ evisceration of the history and tenets of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, a.k.a. The Mormons — is informative, wildly entertaining, and entirely brazen in his willingness to call outrageous, laughable bullshit when he sees it. (He’s also the author of the meticulously researched and highly readable Nailed: Ten Christian Myths That Show Jesus Never Existed at All, which you should absolutely read if you’re interested in the question of whether there was a real historical Jesus or whether he’s an entirely mythical character.) Enjoy!