Back to School!!

     Heyy, guys, sorry it's been so long since we've posted, but Quibbles and I have been quite busy with finishing up the last of the summer reading, and preparing the beginning of Quibbles' class president campaign, of which I am helping her with. Aka, that means making posters, working on propaganda, shooting and editing (editing, oh my frigging gosh.) videos to upload to YouTube, all whilst trying to find something cute to wear on the first day. Haha, I lied about that last one. Do us nerds care about what we wear on the first day? Hint. Even we do o.O

     Anyyyyways, enough about us, I'm here to talk about stuff you want to read about!! So, in case some of our readers, or any at all, are going back to school this year, I'll just list off some tips and tricks I have for doing the best you can whilst in school.

Tip #1: Get a good night's sleep.
     Now, if anyone breaks this rule almost every night, it's definitely me. I had to get up at 9:30am this morning, and guess what time I ended up asleep last night?!? 3:00am. Yes, that's right. I have no idea how I struggle through each day with six and a half hours of sleep, but it's almost as much as I got towards the end of last year when I was still in school. But trust me, if you get a nice long sleep before a big test, you will definitely perform better. The fact that you'll feel amazing and absorb information even better the next day is an added plus as well. It's when you're sleeping that the brain takes time to process and store information you learned during the day, so sleep is pretty essential to your brain overall, along with your internal energy bar. Being a teenager, it's especially important for you to get the most sleep as possible, even more than adults. It's a bad sign when you end up going to bed later than your parents (... me...).

I know it's hard, what with YouTube (goddamn, YouTube, why you so enticing.), procrastinated homework, television, midnight talks with your friends, but maybe slowly try and wean yourself off of these things as school rolls around. I've already made a deal with my mom that at 10:00pm I'm going to hand over my electronics so that I can get a decent night's sleep. I hope this will motivate me to finish my homework super speedily, along with weaning me off my YouTube addiction. SO GET SOME SLEEP AND YOUR BRAIN AND BODY WILL THANK YOUUUU!!! (Wait. Your brain is part of your body... whatever.)

Tip #2: Don't take grades too seriously but nonetheless, try your best.

     There are too many successful people in the world, that didn't do the best in high school or college, for you to convince yourself that grades can dictate your life. They can in a way, but it might be for the best. If you want to be a doctor or lawyer though, you might want to focus on your grades a tiiiid bit more... haha, like a lot more.

     Just because grades may not hold the key to happiness, doesn't mean you can blow off a test, or not show up to class. You may be the type of person to get overly worked up about grades, but try your best not to beat yourself up. Maybe if you want to do better on the next assessment you need to study more, or seek help. If you're someone who absolutely hates school and counts down the seconds 'till it's over, if you don't graduate or drop out, or do very poorly, colleges will not thank you, and employers will think twice about hiring you later in life. For some types of jobs, maybe it's not required, but really, why don't you want to learn new things? I would say try your best at everything, no matter how you perform. This especially applies to school.

Okay, I've actually got homework to do, but more tips to come! If anyone wants to add any in the comments, go right ahead, don't be shyyyyy...

Sorry again for not updating for so long, hopefully Quibbles will post soooon!!! Until next time!

Love always,
- Nargles 8/29/14

PS. Hey Quibbles, do you have any back to school tips?

030 If you were fated to be in a bad accident that would leave you either blind, deaf, or with amnesia that wiped away all your memories, which loss would be the worst? the easiest?

WHOAAAA FUN COLORS!!!!!!!

The loss that would be the most difficult to cope, for me, with would to be rendered blind. Sight is the most important sense to me of the 5, because without it I would feel helpless. There are many people who have gone blind, or have been blind from birth, and they live perfectly content lives with their situation, but I feel like it would be the worst scenario for me to cope with, of the three provided. I'd have to find a whole new system of ways to live my life, and I'd need a lot more help, which, if you've read one of my other current posts, I don't do well with. Coupled also with the fact that I would have to accept that I'm never going to see my family, friends, or anyone ever again. In order to read, which I love to do, and often, would become reading braille, or listening to audiobooks (yaaay, technology!). My life would be changed so dramatically, and being a child afraid of the dark, this frightens me beyond compare.

Amnesia would seem like a mediocre aftermath of a bad accident, but it depends on the duration of said amnesia. In books, the ones who suffer from amnesia always recover fully, and I don't know if I've ever heard that amnesia persists forever, but I'm sure it's possible. Full recovery granted (over how long, I'm not sure), I would consider this the least punishing choice. However, whilst under amnesia's influence, you kind of lose that part of your life. You don't remember who your family and friends are, and how you used to live your life. I can imagine it's very stressful and confusing. 

Being deaf would be the situation I would want, of all the choices. I don't know if it's my love for Switched at Birth, or my my logic, but it seems the most attractive to me. I wouldn't be as debilitated as if I were to go blind, and it wouldn't be as distressing as suffering from amnesia. I think Switched at Birth is an awesome TV show because it doesn't portray deaf people as disabled, just their different way of living, and I think this applies to blind people as well, and any other people that don't like to consider themselves "disabled." 

To go off on a tangent here, I'm reading a book titled, "Left Neglected", by Lisa Genova and I've really been enjoying it a lot more than I previously thought I would. It's realistic (ADULT) fiction (not adult as in rated M content, for all you dirty minded people like myself. It's just aimed towards adults), and I'm usually one to steer right clear of that section of the library, but this is a book I felt obligated to read as my friend's mom lent it to me. Yes, this is what I do when I hang out with my friends. Their moms give me books to read. Anyyyways, I didn't think to much of this book, but I was always fascinated with the science of Neglect. I really love brain science, and being the supernerd that I am, I'm gon' share it with y'all. Neglect usually is the result of a brain injury, which leaves the brain utterly puzzled with the concept of left or right. In the woman in this book's case, she has Left Neglect. Her brain has no concept of "left," even the left side of her body, which the brain chooses to ignore. Not after much concentration and signaling (wearing a bright red sock), can she even spot her left foot. She knows she should have a left side, but she "has no idea where it is." 

Pictures drawn by someone
with Left Neglect.

To put it this way, in case you weren't aware, everyone has a blind spot. It's pretty small, the size of a small x in your field of vision. If you go on YouTube (link below), you can figure out how to find your blind spot. The blind spot is where your optical nerve thing (I've forgotten it's actual name) connect through the back of your eye (cornea or something) to travel to the brain. When light hits this spot there aren't an cones or receptors, you know what I mean. In order to make up for this teeny tiny loss, the brain just fills in what isn't there, and you never even notice it. Having Neglect is like having a very very massive blind spot, a left or right blind spot if you will. The brain doesn't acknowledge that anything's missing, and you carry on as normal until you realize you can't walk, or put on your own clothes because, well, you need both sides to do that. This substitution, if you will, is demonstrated when Neglect patients are asked to draw a clock, or a cat, and when they only draw either the left or right half, they say that the whole clock or the whole cat is there. The brain knows there should be a whole picture, but can't fathom how to draw it because in their mind, it's complete, there's nothing more to do. 

It seems very hard to fathom that this woman's brain is so confused that it doesn't even acknowledge anything on the left side of her. I mean, "how daft can she get, right?" One section from the book I mentioned earlier explains this really well, and helped me picture what it's like to have Neglect. The woman's (woman being Sarah) husband is getting frustrated that she can't even turn her head left to look at where he's standing. "Just turn your head, it's not hard." He says something along those lines. She tells him it is really very hard, and puts it like this. I'll type up an excerpt:

"'I don't understand why you can't just turn your head.'

'I did.'

'To the left.'

'There is no left.'

I hear him sigh in frustration.

'Honey, tell me everything you see in here,' I say

'You, the bed, the window, the chair, the table, the flowers, the cars, the pictures of me and the kids, the bathroom, the door, the television.'

'Is that everything?'

'Pretty much.'

"Okay, now what if I told you that everything you see is only half of everything that's really here? What if I told you to turn your head and look at the other half? Where would you look?'

..."

"'I don't know,' he says.

'Exactly.'

~Lisa Genova, Left Neglected

I think this example is a really good way of standing in someone else's shoes, and seeing the world how they see it themselves. It's a good way to empathize. When Sarah is faced with her Left Neglect, she has to reorient the way she lives her life. Before the accident she was busy at work all the time, hiring a pretty much 24/7 babysitter, and rushing home in the evenings only to kiss her kids goodnight after dropping them off at 7:15 or so to a before-school program. With her condition after the accident she has to slow down, and she realizes that life isn't all about work. She helps her kids with homework, especially her son, who has just been diagnosed with ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder). Left Neglect has also crippled her ability to read, and now she must use a red bookmark so she can locate the left side of the page, and then another bookmark to hold under the line as she's reading it, the same way her son reads. 

I think this book, and facing barriers such as this (going blind, or deaf), teach us a lot about what's important, and help us see (sorry, kind of mean to blind people) the world in a different, better light. Sarah focuses more on her family and marriage without having to worry about work all the time, and I'll bet by the time I finish this book. Sarah will have recovered, but she won't have regretted having her Left Neglect. These kinds of experiences change people, often for the better. It brings people closer and like I said, at first you have to take it easy and focus on the important things. Most deaf or blind, or people who struggle with other physicalities are often conflicted about whether they would choose to be, for example, hearing or seeing. Most wouldn't because it makes them who they are, and is such a big part of their identity. Often experiences such as this teach us so much about compassion, and dealing with whatever life throws at you and taking it in stride, and I think we could all use to learn a little bit from people such as them. 

Love always, 
- Nargles 8/20/14

Left Neglected, by Lisa Genova

Video on the science behind blind spots and how to find yours!

A Response and PERCY JACKSON'S BIRTHDAY!

In response to Nargles' post on animals, I would like to ask the following:

I am learning from biology right now that males are supposed to be louder, more attractive, and a lot more flamboyant than females (notice that I did not say smarter). So why is it that the female anglerfish has an epic reading light add-on, as well as teeth that would make orthodontists run to their mothers, while the male fish looks pretty much like a peanut with a mouth?

Anyways, I'd also like to use this post to say HAPPY BIRTHDAY PERCY JACKSON!!! And all those other folks with birthdays on August 18th, of course.

So that being said, I'll wrap up this post.

And no, I'm not posting at 3:00 AM in the morning, why on earth would you ask that?


Spoiler: Percy and Annabeth fall into Tartarus

- Quibbles 8/18/14

Not a very substantial post, but aesthetically pleasing, nonetheless

Sorry, guys, I'm hitting sort of a metal block/ losing the will inspiration to post without my beloved Quibbles here. I don't want to post mediocre content and degrade our blog, but I've just not been feeling it these past two days. Sorry for any inconvenience, and here are some very nice, cute pictures and facts about animals! :)

Sorry again,

Love always,
- Nargles 8/18/14

Dogs are capable of understanding
over 250 words and gestures, can count up to five, and can perform
simple mathematic calculations. The average dog is as intelligent as a two year old child.

During the something-hundreds,
manatees were often mistaken for
mermaids by (probably drunk) sailors.

A group of cats is called a Clowder.
The heaviest domestic cat on record weighed around 46 pounds.

The male anglerfish in all his
glory. What attractive.

All the anglerfish that look like the one above, are female.
The male anglerfish is a parasite that attaches himself to the
female, and when the time comes, releases his sperm into her. Sexy, am I right?

029 What would you do if you were the only one who knew the world would end in one year from today? Would you tell people or keep it to yourself? If you knew that in a year you would die of a heart attack, how would you alter your life?

What would I do if the world ended in a year and only I knew? I have no freaking idea. It's such a hard choice to make. First, I see one very different decision you have to make right right off the bat. Who are you going to tell? The world, your friends and family, or no one? Personally, I would probably end up telling my family and friends. If I had it my way I wouldn't tell anybody, but I am really horrible at keeping secrets. I end up wanting to tell the person I'm keeping the secret from just to get the weight off my shoulders. The reason why I would not tell the world is thus: most people probably wouldn't believe me. I know I wouldn't believe some nutter claiming that the world is going to end in a year, not after December 21, 2012. This brings me to another question. How is it that I come about this insight that the world is going to end?!? It seems a little #sketch if you ask me. Did it come to me in a dream? Nah, I probably wouldn't believe it. Did some wise old sage tell me? Nope, wouldn't have believed them either. My grandmother?!? No, no, no, definitely not. I'm a very skeptical person when it comes to improbably things, such as the world spontaneously ending. Eh, whatever :P

Another reason why I would not tell the world about the apocalypse is because the whole fate thing again. I'm probably annoying the few consistent readers we've got out there, and sorry to bombard you with my beliefs, because that's not what this blog aims to accomplish, but yeah, I'm going to tell you again anyways. (#feelingsassy) I'm a big believer in fate, and if by some means I find out from some divine force or prophecy that the world is going to end in exactly one year from today, I would not tell the world because if I didn't know this, and if no one else knew this, life would proceed as normal, I don't want to mess anything up. What if because everyone believed what I'd said, cancer researchers abandoned their research months away from finding a cure? People would drop responsibilities out of fear or out of seeking last adventures. Of course, if the world ended we wouldn't need cancer researchers anymore because there would be no cancer. Okay, lets' just say that it's an apocalypSe and some people survive and some of them happen to have cancer, SO THEY NEED THE CURE, OKAY?!? (I'm sorry, I just got off ranting with Quibbles about how much we hate shipping prices, especially ETSY SHIPPING PRICES, WHICH ARE THE WORST) Also, reiterating the fact that no one would believe me. Then again, there are plenty of people who think the world is ending soon, and no one pays any attention to them but I guess one of them could be right.

Hmm, but it might be selfish of me to withhold this information from people because as I say in the paragraph below, if I knew I was going to die the next year, I'd drop everything and go look for some adventure. Maybe others would want that too. But I kind of strongly believe any logical person would not believe me, not even myself, someone claiming that the world is going to end for the umpteenth time. It could bring on a year long Esther day (by the way, Quibbles, we forgot to post for Esther day, so maybe we should write a belated one together or something. PS. I LOVE YU!!!!), spurring people to admit how they really feel towards one another before they die. Maybe even perhaps war would cease because fighting would become futile. All assuming they believed me. I'm being very pessimistic, I know, but I seriously think this approach is logical.

What do you think about this question, Quibbles?

First thing I would do if I knew I was going to die a year from now due to a heart attack? Quit school. I mean, school is only for the future, and if I don't have a future after next year, I really see no point. Second, get my passport in order and travel the world. I wouldn't even have to worry about expenses, because guess what? I'm not going to college!I'd go to India, and Africa, and Ireland, and the Netherlands, and China, and just about anywhere. And of course to Florida to swim with manatees. I'd really like to live a month or so in India, China, Mongolia or some place different from America. Some place where they have open air markets, festivals in the streets, and where the people lead simpler lives without internet, full of culture that doesn't include McDonalds. Basically, I'd pull a Walter Mitty and just head out into the world with a rough idea of where I'm going. "Hey! This place seems cool, let's go there!" I'm scared of doing these things too, but more scared that I'll never do them. I don't know about the future, but right now all I know about my perceivable future is that I don't want to be that shy nerdy girl that goes right into being a computer programmer and from the time she graduates college heads to an office job, sitting in a cubicle from 9am-5pm, Mondays through Fridays. Maybe this is a teenage thing, the whole wanderlust ideal, but who doesn't want to travel the world? I know a lot of people are satisfied with the office job, white picket fenced house, and kids, and eventually that does sound nice, but maybe not just yet.

Love always,
- Nargles 8/15/14

028 If you were enjoying a festive dinner at a friend’s house and found a dead cockroach in your salad, what would you do?

Pick it out and keep eating. To point it out would embarrass your host, and that would be very rude. Just keep a look out for any more creepy crawlies that lurk within your meal.

What about you, Quibbles?

Love always,
- Narlges 8/15/14

PS. Pageviews for short and to the point posts!

027 Is it hard for you to ask for help? If so, what about it bothers you the most?

To put it clearly, it is extremely hard for me to ask for help, or ask things of people. Sure, it's easy to just ask my friends for small favors, and I ask my mom for help pretty much 24/7 because I fail at life and she needs help me remember everything. However, if this person that I need help from is an acquaintance or a straight up stranger, no way. One situation when I'm extremely reluctant to ask questions is in class, fearing that I'll hold the class up, or look stupid. At school I pride myself in being a nerd, and hardly ever raise my hand, fearing getting the question wrong and people questioning me. Teachers say that you have no reason to be ashamed of getting a question wrong or failing in front of your class, but to me and people like me it is kind of a big deal, and I so wish it wasn't. Sometimes I pass on getting help from the teacher when I need and try to turn to the internet (hint: not effective). And there are sometimes when I do turn to my teachers for help and then they direct me towards the internet (also not effective), which then dissuades me to ask any other teachers for help. It's already hard enough admitting to them that I need help.

This summer, however, in my Chinese class (where I understood a good 20% of what she was saying), I realized that in order for me to truly utilize my experience there (MMLA, Chinese immersion camp), I needed to ask as many questions as I could so I wouldn't fall behind. At first I kind of went overboard, asking questions about pretty much everything down to why some kind of green dragon tea is called green dragon tea. It just felt so good not to have to stuff my inquiries to the back of my mind and LET THEM GO or OPRESS THEM :) Once I started doing this I realized that I learned so much more efficiently, and got better grades. Did I mention the only reason why I started doing this was because I was graded poorly on the "asks questions when confused" part of my report card? Haha, well that's why. Also, my Chinese was very, very, bad. I was forced, or rather, I forced myself into an uncomfortable situation within another uncomfortable situation and it turned out very well, and that uncomfortable situation made the other uncomfortable situation better for me. Instead of pretending I knew what the teachers and the more advanced students were saying to me, I asked them about a few select terms I thought sounded important to the conversation, and it helped me so much! During breaks between classes instead of turning to the dictionary to help me, I would ask my teacher and we'd have an actual conversation about which word this was and what it means, and so on. It's a much more proactive way of learning, and besides, the dictionary isn't always reliable.

Okay, leading away from the school scene, because that is where I truly find it the hardest to ask for help, let's enter into everyday life. The reason why I don't ask people I barely know for help is mostly because I don't want to inconvenience them. I don't usually consider that my need for their help may be stronger than the effort it actually takes them to help me. In times like this I often put other people before myself, which is illogical, because they'd probably be willing to help me, or even glad to. I know I'm always willing to help, even if someone doesn't want it. I think one time in preschool I reduced my friend down to tears because I insisted on trying to help her with something even though she insisted she could do it herself (she could do it by herself, in case you were wondering).

Another example, also from my Chinese immersion camp, of my needing other people's help, was during the final week of camp when I managed to break my foot trying to parkour over the back of a line of chairs rather than make the effort of going around (veery smart). I needed crutches and for the most part I didn't need anyone's help... except during mealtimes. There was no way I could crutch around with a ceramic plate and a glass of water. I would feel so bad that I needed to ask people to help me, especially the people I ate with every meal who had to do it almost every day. Looking back I realized I needed their help more than it was an inconvenience for them to help me, and I don't think saying this is selfish, even though I would have thought so four weeks ago. Of course, as soon as I could hobble along my broken (I didn't know it was broken at the time) foot, I got my own food, and it felt SO LIBERATING! Buut, something for me to think about.

I know it would be good for me to try and be more open with people about needing help, in all situations, but saying is different than doing and I'd be a hypocrite if I told you from now on I was going to be open and ask for help when I need it. Being away from home and crippled socially, by not being able to speak English, and physically, by breaking my foot, I think I've learned a lot about help and how to know when you need to ask. I may not ask for help when I want it, but maybe I'll learn to ask when I need it.

Love always,
- Nargles 8/15/14

Pennies and Nickels

Abraham Lincoln on the American penny

What do pennies represent to you? Are they pieces of copper that weigh down your change purse? Are they coins that the cashier hands back after you give him a ten dollar bill? Or are they something more, a mark of the great sentimentality that we Americans tend to have? Either way, facts are facts, and the facts are the following: pennies are slowing down our economy, burdening our national debt, and creating huge problems, all because we can’t bring ourselves to part with the shiny reddish coins that have been with us since the late sixteenth century.

In the United States of America, the currency used is in the form of coins and dollar bills. The lowest amount of money in circulation is the penny, which is technically worth one one-hundredth of a dollar. In reality, however, the metal used to make the penny is worth more than twice that amount. In 2013, the cost it took the United States Mint to manufacture one penny is 2.41 cents, which means the government spent nearly $169 million in just 2013 to put $70 million in pennies into circulation. Robert M. Whaples, professor of economics at Wake Forest University and an expert on the history of the US economy, also estimated that the United States loses roughly $900 million a year on penny production and handling. It is clear, to taxpayers, that this is not only a huge loss of money, but also easily avoidable. In fact, in 1972, although a penny was worth what a nickel is worth today, the economy managed very well without a coin that is worth the equivalent of a penny today. This shows that a monetary value that is one one-hundredth of a dollar is totally unnecessary for a successful economy to work. And also, as Professor Whaples said, “There's this cash drawer sitting there with four slots for coins. Currently, there's (a slot for) a penny, a nickel, a dime and a quarter. If you freed up that penny space, there would be an open place and, naturally, we would move to using a $1 coin. The Federal Reserve has estimated that replacing paper $1 bills with more durable $1 coins could save $500 million a year." Taking away pennies and dollar bills and replacing them with dollar coins could save our nation as a whole nearly a billion dollars. If solving this problem is as easy as removing a few coins from circulation, why has it garnered so little attention from the members of Congress who are so busily looking for ways to pay off our national debt?

Money aside, there is also another benefit of losing the penny. The National Association of Convenience Stores and the Walgreens drugstore chain have estimated that handling pennies adds 2 to 2.5 seconds per cash transaction. Assume that the average citizen makes one such transaction every day, therefore wasting about 730 seconds a year. The median worker earns just over $36,000 a year, or about 0.5 cents per second, so working with pennies costs him $3.65 annually. This means that nationally, while we’re fiddling with these near-worthless flat discs of bacteria, we’re losing billions a year. What part of keeping the penny makes sense at all? In July of 2006, Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-Ariz.) decided to take action on this issue by introducing a bill that would get rid of the penny. He revealed that in the first half of the year 2006 alone, the U.S. government minted 4.8 billion pennies, and since it cost nearly 3.5 cents to make and distribute each penny, that robbed taxpayers of $115 million. However, even with such strong evidence and practical sense, Rep. Kolbe could not pass this bill, and the penny remained.

Consumers may worry that rounding up on costs could potentially lose them a few dollars a year. This has been proven false by many experimental studies, including one which looked at hundreds of thousands of transactions, and found that after all other taxes and fees were added, rounding prices to the nearest nickel actually led to a net gain for customers. Moreover, we have a precedent to follow by. Canada, along with many other nations, got rid of the penny, and saved billions of dollars. A study conducted by the Bank of Canada ahead of the decision to retire the penny concluded that there would be no significant impact on inflation. About a year into Canada's penniless phase, this has proven true, much like it has in other countries.

The US also has some experience with eliminating defunct currency. In 1857, it stopped minting the half-cent coin after Congress realized that its purchasing power (the equivalent of around 11 cents today) and cost of production had made it impractical. This move led to no immediate or long-term effects on the value of U.S. currency. Furthermore, some Americans are already used to a life without pennies. U.S. military bases abroad gave up on the coins around 30 years ago. The Department of Defense told the Los Angeles Times in 2008 that they were simply "too heavy and are not cost-effective to ship." Why aren’t we following suit? The penny costs too much, wastes time and energy, and has no functional value to our society. Is sentimentality worth the price of all that?

The only cost to bring pennies out of circulation is our sentimental attachment. We have seen other countries do the very same thing, with great results, yet we are too stubborn and affectionate of these outdated coins to let go. The great thing about America is that we have so many smart people able to convey a situation and find the easiest, most efficient solution. But the less great thing is that politicians are under so much pressure to be popular that they don’t always do the right thing. Along with our sharp consumers and healthy economy, we could do great things with the loss of our unnecessary coins.

For more information visit the Vlogbrothers at Pennies and Nickels, or read this article from the Huffington Post: Can We All Just Agree That Pennies Are Stupid And Need To Be Retired? and this article from mint.com: Should the U.S. Mint Ditch the Penny?

The Canadian penny, now out of circulation

What about you, Nargles and readers? What do you think? Should we get rid of pennies (and possibly nickels) and replace them with dollar bills?

- Quibbles 8/14/14

025.5 Does a beautiful creature merit more compassion than an ugly one? If so, why? Do you injure yourself psychologically by destroying something you find beautiful? Is there a meaningful difference between pulling the wings off an insect and stepping on it? How much would it take to induce you to rip the wings off a hummingbird or dove?

Dear Nargles,

First off, CAVELADIES, YESSSSS!!!!!!!

Second, doesn't the anglerfish (hanklerfish?) remind you of this guy?

I MEAN LOOK AT THE UNDERBITE!!!!


Anyways, Augustus liked beautiful things. I like beautiful things. I think it's kind of part of human nature to be happier around beautiful things than not-beautiful things. We sort of have this desire or even obsession to have the prettiest things because they're visually pleasing and make you feel good when you realize they're yours. Antique vases, beautiful houses, trophy wives... they all have the same theory. I like looking at beautiful paintings, smelling nice-colored flowers, and reading stylishly designed books. Even though this generation is all about the "be yourself" and "inner not outer beauty", it's still instinctual to look at something and immediately decide "I like it" or "I don't like it". So in that way, I agree with you, Nargles. I don't think we can help judging a book by its cover much.

Also, when you pull the wings off an insect, the most you can see is a detached wing, some ragged edges, and an incomplete body. But when you pull of the wings of a dove, first of all, you need to use a knife. Second, there is a mass of blood that will gush out at you, and third, the bird will make terrible noises as you do it, as well as probably struggle. All of these factors combined makes chopping the wings off a dove so much less appealing than pulling off the wings of an insect.

If I gave you a piece of paper with a realistic dove on it, and a piece of paper with a realistic insect on it, you probably wouldn't care much which wing you tore off, because there is no guilt involved. Birds are also much more complex and much more "human" than bugs, just like you said, Nargles. Because of that, there is so much more guilt when you destroy a dove than when you destroy an insect.

I wouldn't rip off the wings of a hummingbird or dove, either. I couldn't, even if I wanted to. Except, if I was presented with a decision to save the bird or kill my family, I would probably tear the wings off the bird. I don't think I would bear doing it myself, though. Stepping on a bug? Definitely, just like you said.

I don't think it's the beauty of something that makes us unwilling to destroy it, although that is a factor. I think it's how similar it is to you. We relate with people/animals/objects similar to ourselves, and destroying them is like destroying ourselves.

And finally, do I injure myself psychologically by destroying something I find beautiful? I'm not willing to let go of things I find beautiful, and it's kind of like the Professor Quirrel unicorn deal. He killed a pure, beautiful object, a unicorn, and he was cursed to live a "half-life" forever.

... It is a monstrous thing, to slay a unicorn. Only one who has nothing to lose, and everything to gain, would commit such a crime. The blood of a unicorn will keep you alive, even if you are an inch from death, but at a terrible price. You have slain something pure and defenceless to save yourself, and you will have but a half-life, a cursed life, from the moment the blood touches your lips."

- Firenze explains to Harry Potter why the slaying of a unicorn is a crime.

I guess that's kind of the essense of this question. You do injure yourself psychologically by destroying a beautiful thing because of the guilt involved.

- Quibbles 8/13/14

025 Does a beautiful creature merit more compassion than an ugly one? If so, why? Do you injure yourself psychologically by destroying something you find beautiful? Is there a meaningful difference between pulling the wings off an insect and stepping on it? How much would it take to induce you to rip the wings off a hummingbird or dove?

I think I'm going to be taking the reins for the updates and postings this week, as I know Quibbles has lots of school work ("During the summer?" you ask. Don't ask) that she really needs to catch up on. In addition, I was gone for the whole of last week, so I owe you guys extra!

Addressing the question above, beauty is not the same to everyone, and there is beauty in everything. I may not see the beauty of an ant crawling past my shoe on the sidewalk, but I can admire the beauty in the way each ant works tirelessly for the good of the colony, how every ant has a job and a purpose. I don't admire gravity, or see it's beauty most of the time, but I can see the beauty in the way it holds us and the universe in a delicate balance.

I do believe, however, that humans are genetically engineered to favor beautiful things, or the things we find beautiful, over others. If you trace back to primitive times, it was just good logic. The cavemen with the smushed up face who walked with a limp, female cavewomen probably didn't want to reproduce with because, come on, do you really think this guy can protect you and your future offspring? Heck no! He couldn't even protect himself. Back then, if you were the best looking caveman around, you probably had the best genes, and all the caveladies were digging that.

Can you tell which face is symmetrical and which is the original? Which do you think looks better?

I think beauty within humans first and foremost is associated with health, and genetics. It's said that people who are thought to be more beautiful have more symmetrical faces. Most of the time girls (and guys!) drool over guys with big muscles because they appear fit and are confident in their ability to protect them should they ever need it. Of course, nowadays men don't need big muscles and aesthetically pleasing faces (though you usually think your partner does indeed have a nice face) to find a partner because as you get to know them, and start to love them, of course they're beautiful.

NOW FINALLY REALLY GETTING TO THE QUESTION

Panda caretaker dressed in a specialized
suit designed to make pandas believe
they too are a panda. And in order to
be a panda, you have to smell like one.
That's right, panda dung and urine is
rubbed allover the exterior of the suit.
Them pandas don't even know the
difference :P

Although more "beautiful" creatures don't deserve more compassion than "ugly" creates, there's no doubt they receive more. One example I like is pandas compared to other animals. Think of how much money the world sinks into the preservation of pandas and their return to the mountains of China. I am all for it, PANDAS ARE SO CUTE. Everyone cares for pandas and wants them around for a long time, but what about the anglerfish?!? Even I must admit anglerfish are have pretty hard features, with a protruding underbite and long comb-like teeth. They're super awesome, but darn scary, man.

I think that some of the reasons why we don't feel as much compassions for some creatures than others is because we believe they have the capability to hurt us. We see the anglerfishes' teeth and we think "danger." When we see pandas we think "cuddle!!!" Or at least I do... However, a full grown panda is probably is more able to kill us than an anglerfish. One swipe from that mighty paw, and you're a goner.

I think we don't feel nearly as much compassion for insects rather than animals because we don't see them on the same level of awareness as us. With insects, all they care about is survival and reproduction. We view them as having no intelligence and not human. Animals are the closest ones to us that demonstrate qualities like ours (because we're animals too!).

It's interesting to think about these questions because I would never dream of killing a dragonfly or butterfly, but an ant, sure, why not? It's just an ant. As for ripping the wings off a dove or hummingbird? Never, not for any amount of money, no thanks. I don't think I'd do it for anything, and that makes me selfish because if I could end war forever by ripping off one dove's wings, I wouldn't. Dragonfly, maybe. Squish an ant? Definitely.

I left out the question that asks, "Do you injure yourself  psychologically by destroying something you find beautiful?" I think I'll leave it to Quibbles if she has time to return and post tomorrow. Seriously guys, she's crazy busy and worked to the bone.

Love always,
- Nargles 8/13/14

PS. The Economic Benefits of Being Beautiful

024.5 Should The Isle of Men TT race be outlawed?

Dear Nargles,

Whether or not people have the freedom to die is kind of a controversial issue. The government has made marijuana illegal, because of the deaths related to it, so obviously they have some control over our actions. And it's not like we can go around killing people either, so this freedom of action thing won't really work.

But I agree with you. They knew what they were signing up for. I'm sure they know the death rates and statistics better than any of us. If this is what you really want, go for it. There's a chance that you'll die... but there's also a chance to achieve your lifetime goal. And what is life if you're not achieving your lifetime goals? For people who really believe in their dreams, the risk is worth it. They acknowledge the possibility of death and continue pursuing what they want. I admire them for that.

If they were accidentally killing or injuring spectators or other civilians, that would be another story. But they pressed "Agree and Continue" to the terms and conditions, in which the words "YOU MAY DIE" are in bold capitals. The government has no excuse to take this race away. There are people's dreams involved here, and to ban the Isle of Men TT is to rob racers of them.

Happy racing! May the odds be ever in your favor.
- Quibbles 8/11/14

024 Should The Isle of Men TT race be outlawed?

Hey guys! I've got some current events for you today!

The Isle of Men Tourist Trophy race is located on the Snaefell Mountain Course, the oldest one still in use. 225 miles, it's extremely dangerous, with 242 deaths resulting since its start 107 years ago, with four from just this year. They travel down narrow paved roads at an average of 130mph. With the death toll being what it is, some people wonder if this kind of racing should still be made illegal. 

Connor Collins, competitor of the Isle of Men TT Race,
during his crash from the course in 2010. If you can see
clearly, his body is that T shape above the fence and his
motor bike is that big piece of flying debris.

CI would say no to this question. "Oh my gosh! Nargles! Why would you say such a thing?!" Look, all these guys that compete in this race, they know the death tolls and the risk they run by participating. The only way they would be willing to risk their lives whilst doing this is because they really love it. The inspiration for this post was a video I saw on YouTube (because I am always on YouTube, link below), and in that video was a biker participating in this race. He recounted that in 2010, I think it was, he had this horrible crash off the curve of a hill thing. He ended up in the ER with a broken back, dislocated knee, and messed up arm. Despite his injuries, and kind of maybe almost dying, he worked his butt off to get back into racing again. He said it took a lot of physical and mental work, but he believes that this race is the best one in the world. He wouldn't dream of letting anything stop him. 

I say that if they are aware of the incredible risks they're taking with their lives and still wish to proceed with the race, I see no reason why the government (or whoever) has the authority to ban it. FREEDOM OF ACTION (?!?), YEAH!!

What do you all think (Quibbles included)?

Love always,
- Nargles 8/11/14

023.5 While walking in the park, you see a stranger and realize with absolute certainty that if you go over and introduce yourself, the two of you will fall in love more deeply than you even imagine possible. But you also know that in 6 months the person will be hit by a bus and killed. Would you go over to the person or leave? Assume you know that once you decide, you’ll forget what lies ahead.

Dear Nargles,

I IMMEDIATELY THOUGHT OF GUS AND HAZEL TOO!!! GREAT MINDS THINK ALIKE, AM I RIGHT OR AM I RIGHT???

Anyways, I agree with everything you've said. As one of our dear friends says, "Better sh*t your pants than be constipated the rest of your life." And I agree. No one can lead a life without any sadness, and if you don't take any risks, your life will never be sad, or happy, or exciting, or drama-filled, or ANYTHING. The line I wrote in my middle school graduation speech was "A ship in the harbour is safe... but that's not what ships are made for." Even if you knew your happiness was definitely going to end in sadness, cherish the happiness because there's not much of it to go around all seven billion of us.

That's all I have to add,
 - Quibbles 8/11/14

023 While walking in the park, you see a stranger and realize with absolute certainty that if you go over and introduce yourself, the two of you will fall in love more deeply than you even imagine possible. But you also know that in 6 months the person will be hit by a bus and killed. Would you go over to the person or leave? Assume you know that once you decide, you’ll forget what lies ahead.

Hey, guys, I'm back! I know I said I'd post on Saturday, and today happens to be Monday, but I've been a bit tired and busy, sorry!! I hope you've all been well and faithfully read Quibbles's posts this week, as she upheld the blog all on her own :)

Regarding the question in the title, I think I would do it. If you know for sure you will fall in love with this person, that means he or she is great, and will end up your best friend and you'll have amazing times while you are together. Would you really choose not knowing your best friend if you knew they were going to die soon and cause you such immense pain from their loss? It's pretty much no competition. With the pain comes all the wonderful experiences you had together, and that will help you get through the loss.

This question reminds me of Augustus and Hazel Grace a little bit. Even though Hazel, Gus (Augustus), and their families knew that Hazel was probably going to die, Gus never doubted once that he wanted to be with her in the time remaining. That's what made him special. He didn't care that Hazel's cancer was terminal, because the time they spent together was worth the pain he knew would come along with her death. (This was not quite the ending, but I won't give anything away ;))

Another thing I would like to add is my belief about destiny, or fate. Some people don't believe in this, but I like to believe that fate isn't a set path, but a set of choices you make personally to get you where you're meant to be. Sometimes people make bad choices, but that just helps them grow as a person and towards their destiny because it will shape the choices they make in the future. If I didn't know beforehand that my "true love" was destined to die in six months (in one way or another), I would have fallen in love with this person and would have been forced to endure the pain of this person's death. These kinds of situations change people, sometimes for the better, or the worse, but I think it's meant to be. Trying to evade destiny would not end well.

Wouldn't it be unfair to your "true love" to also alter their lives in such a huge way? You don't know anything about this person, and you're already depriving them of your love and being loved. They could really need it, you never know. Maybe he or she has cancer, just like Hazel, and needs someone to love them and have this experience before they die. Maybe they're going to die in a car crash, or something unpredictable, but at least they'll die knowing they're loved. I think the spread of love, in any of its forms, should be encouraged and celebrated.

What do you think, Quibbles?

Love always,
- Nargles 8/11/14

022.5 "If I Die Young" - The Band Perry

Dear Quibbles,
The explanation for this one is simple, people pity the dead and the dying. "Oh, that girl is dying, and her dying wish is to end world hunger. She's dying, it's so sad, I should just donate." Or... "Mr. Example is on his deathbed, the least I can do is check out his books and articles. Look at that, they're really good!" For humans, death is a big deal, and when it occurs, people pay attention, sadly perhaps even more than when the person was alive. It's really quite sad, but sometimes it's just the way it is. Some people are so much more famous when they're dead than when they were alive and that's just a shame.

"Do not pity the dead, Harry. Pity the living and above all, those who live without love."
~Albus Dumbledore

Love always,
- Nargles 8/13/14

022 "If I Die Young" - The Band Perry

So I was listening to "If I Die Young" by The Band Perry and for the first time I actually stopped to think about the lyrics. And there's this one line: "Funny when you're dead how people start listening..."

And I guess the worst part is that this true. In The Fault in Our Stars (I know I reference this a LOT, but bear with me here), no one really pays much attention to Augustus until he gets cancer. Then, when it turns out he lives, people still fuss over him, but after a year or so, they slowly lose interest again. And finally, when he finds out he's (surprise!) going to die, everyone goes back and visits him, gives gifts, et.c. I find it sad that in order for you to be special and important to your friends, you have to be on the verge of dying. Of course, we can't pay attention to every small detail about everyone's lives, and we can't be everybody's bestest friend, but it still irritates me so much when people you thought were your friends ignore you and take you for granted until you're about to die (or worse, be expelled!).

You can also take this another way. Is it okay to manipulate someone's death to guilt people into doing things? "Augustus loved animals so you should donate to animal charities." "Hazel has cancer and she really wants to end world hunger. Can you donate something so she can help?" "It's his only wish to go to Disneyland, and he's about to die any day soon. Do you think you could give us a couple tickets?" Is there a line, a yes or no, for things like that? Is it okay for charities like This Star Won't Go Out to advertise using someone's death? (I'm not hating, I'm just speculating here, I fully support TSWGO). Is it okay to use someone's death for personal gain? Does it work? Does using the fact that someone died help others listen?

Say Mr. Example died of cancer. During his life, he kept trying to tell people that teenagers are people, and they should be treated like normal humans rather than hormonal, emotionally explosive butterflies during a 'sensitive stage of life'. He wrote books, published papers, contributed to articles, but no one really listened to him. And suddenly, now that Mr. Example is dead and people are mourning for him and sympathizing with the family and such, people find out about these articles. Suddenly, his quotes are posted on Facebook and his novels are bestsellers. Is it okay for us to do that? I don't even really know what I'm asking here, but I'm not blaming people for that. You can't keep track of 7 billion people at once. But I still feel bad seeing us ignore people until something drastic happens. What even is the philosophy about that? Why do we sympathize and understand dead people better? Maybe Nargles can clear that up.

I'm sorry for the huge jumble of words. I'm not very clear, but this isn't a very clear subject. It's an interesting quote, for sure, but there are so many ways to analyze it. I'm depending on you, Nargles, to make everything all better.

- Quibbles 8/11/14

021.5 Freak the Geek

Dear Quibbles,
I agree with John Green about the situation he mentioned. It's not the girls' fault that their bullies think that they aren't good enough, or cool enough, or too geeky. The fact that they care enough to say things like that portrays how they might feel about themselves. They thing they need to do this to remain popular or to get people to like them, etc. That's their problem that they feel this way, and dislike people for being themselves. Sure, there are a good amount of people I dislike, for no good reason at all, because they just aren't my kind of people. I, however, don't make mean comments towards them or bully them.

I sort of believe that if I don't like someone for who they are, it is my fault. This is due to the fact that I think that if I could see everyone, or just a couple strangers, for who they really are, almost all of them are worthy of my love or liking, you know what I mean. Everyone has people who love them, and everyone has flaws. Perhaps behind every bully is a really insecure little boy or girl, or behind a terrorist is someone whose family was shot and killed (for being terrorists), leaving him scarred and angry. It's seeing past the flaws and accepting them that really constitutes love. There are some horrible people out there, with horrible flaws that can't or should not be accepted. Some people can't be helped, but I truly believe that if you show someone you care they will eventually be willing to let you in. Showing that you care, you can help them fix the bad, and replace it with good. We throw criminals into jail without getting them what they really need. Support, therapy, a caring community. The government virtually throws them in an extended time out, which isn't effective. They throw them away without trying to fix them, they don't show they care. Too easily we give up on people. Maybe this is me being an optimist, but really, "love is all you need."

Okay, sorry, this took a really big turn, but let me know what you think, Quibbles!

Love always,
- Nargles 8//11/14

021 Freak the Geek

So you all know about John Green. Or most of you do. If you don't know who he is, check out our Book Corners page and you will see pretty much all of his books. And after that, you can click on our links page and there are three links dedicated to him.

He's known for his writing because he speaks the truth, he has quirky, unique, and lovable characters, and he has a fantastic sense of humor. In The Fault in Our Stars, he swells up our hearts and make us love and adore the characters... and then proceeds to stomp on them (both our hearts and the characters) with the heel of a stiletto. In fact, John Green describes Hazel describing Augustus's cancer as "a one-legged fat man wearing a stiletto heel standing on the middle of his chest". But you and I know this isn't true. It isn't John, or Hazel, or Augustus that's being described. It's those of us stupid enough to open the book, fail to realize that the book could blow our feelings apart, and keep on reading to the end. And I am one of those people.

In any case, here's a quote I found from one of his lesser known works, a short story called "Freak the Geek" from an anthology of short stories called Geektastic: Stories from the Nerd Herd. It's about two girls in a private school: a geeky, shy girl named Lauren (the narrator) and a geeky, not-shy girl named Kayley, her best friend. The ritual at their school is for the the popular kids to "freak the geek", or, in other words, massively prank the girl(s) they find the geekiest. Lauren and Kayley are 'freaked' by a paintball war in which (surprise surprise) they are not the ones wielding the guns. As they run into the woods and hide under a bridge, Kayley sort of blows up on Lauren by telling her that the reason they're running from their own classmates and considered the two least liked girls in the entire school is because Lauren is "meek". Lauren responds by telling her the following:

You know, you're a total know-it-all. And it's incredibly rude sometimes; I mean, you're not perfect either, and you act like it's my fault but it's not my fault for being quiet or your fault for being a know-it-all. It's not your problem or my problem; it's their problem. They're the demented ones, not us, so don't take it out on me, because the only thing that holds anything together for me is having someone else on the Not Demented Team.
(Lauren to Kayley)

- John Green, "Freak the Geek", Geektastic

This quote sort of intrigues me. Because it's interesting to think that being the way you are isn't your fault if someone doesn't like it. It's their fault for thinking that way. Me, I don't think any opinion can be wrong or right, and I really don't think an opinion can be someone's fault, but it's an interesting thought to consider.

- Quibbles 8/7/14

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

020 What’s most intriguing about the Cinderella story?

To me, it's not really the glass slipper or the "love at first sight" that confuses me. What confuses me is what on earth Cinderella's dad was doing while his precious daughter was scrubbing floors and braiding hair. It kind of seems like he gets married to the stepmom and then whoosh... he's gone. I don't really know about you, but to me, that seems kind of sketchy. Would he really not notice the mysteriously spotless house and his wife's mysteriously darned socks or whatever?

I guess that's what makes Cameron Dokey's Before Midnight (from the Once Upon A Time series OF BOOKS) so appealing to me, besides the super pretty cover. She actually brings the dad back as a central figure (albeit the bad guy).

I love this series. It makes fairytales, you know, ACTUALLY MAKE SENSE, all while giving lessons and morals and all that. Mostly, they have cute endings and they make me happy on sad days.

According to the back:

"Etienne de Brabant is brokenhearted. His wife has died in childbirth, leaving him alone with an infant daughter he cannot bear to name. But before he abandons her for king and court, he brings a second child to be raised alongside her, a boy whose identity he does not reveal.

The girl, La Cendrillon, and the boy, Raoul, pass sixteen years in the sevants' care until one day, a very fine lady arrives with her two daughters. The lady has married La Cendrillon's father, and her arrival changes their lives.

When an invitation to a great ball reaches the family, La Cendrillon's new stepmother will make a decision with far-reaching effects. Her choice will lead La Cendrillon and Raoul toward their destiny - a choice that will challenge their understanding of family, test their loyalty and courage, and, ultimately, teach them who they are."

So the synopsis is kind of cheesy. But the plot was kind of brilliant (spoiler: Raoul is the twin of the prince??) (spoiler: Cendrillon marries the prince) (spoiler: Anastasia marries Raoul) (spoiler: the stepmother/sisters aRENT ACTUALLY THE VILLAINS!) (spoiler: the dad is).

And I'm getting a little off track and I have to eat dinner but the main point of this post is that THE ONCE UPON A TIME SERIES IS COOL. CHECK IT OUT.

- Quibbles 8/6/14

PS: Nargglesssss when are you coming baaaaaack... :(