New Design

So I decided to change the template of the blog. I feel like the old design made it difficult to read my writings sometimes. This new style I hope accommodates reading more. I'll probably see about removing the background image but at least you should be able to see the text more clearly.

Here's the before image

And here's the new

If you prefer the older style, feel free to comment. Right now I'm experimenting with styles so I may go through a few more tweaks before I'm done. I'm open to suggestions.

N. D. Moharo

Warning about "Friends"

To Those with Frenemies,
    While everyone is giving Daisy Ridley advice about life and fame, I might as well chip in: Beware of the Entourage! Why? "Be careful of who your friends are" because "a friend is another self." The moment when you are first friends with someone is when they comment that they like something and you say, "you too?!" This is because friendship is built on common ground and your best friends are the ones you share a lot in common. This is also part of the reason why your spouse does not need to be your best friend despite what young people say on social media.
     That sort of example of a group voicing their thoughts is exactly why the entourage is so dangerous. If your crowd of "friends" are all bad examples, then you will become a bad example yourself. Is it possible to overcome this? Yes, but that is dangerous in itself because you risk becoming too prideful. What I mean is that it's only possible if you have a very strong spirit and stick to ground.
    My father would often say that he was proud that I knew how to pick friends. It's not exactly that I didn't hang out with "bad friends", but I was the leader who generally decided what would be done. I was also the one who would determine what was appropriate to do. Age was probably part of the reason why I was able to do this. The combination of Sanguine and Choleric (Fun and Leadership) blood was also likely beneficial. However, the core was that I stuck to my core values and was respected for it. Even in college, I didn't have to say anything for my friends and roommates to know what I would watch with them and what would cause me to leave.
    That ability to leave is powerful and is probably the best way that show you are above the influence. If my friends did something I really didn't like, such as gossiping and talking bad about "friends" behind their backs, I would just leave and find another group to hang with. That's how you find out who are your friends and who is just trying to control you. Eventually, only those who really want to be your friend will come and follow you, and to be honest, you really only need maybe 3 good friends to be happy with life. It's fine to have lots of friends, but very rarely would you have more than 5 good friends. There's no need to worry because it's not the numbers that matters but the quality of those few friendships. If you can find good friends, those who encourage virtue and love you as a friend, then there's hope that you can survive even fame and fortune.

With Love,

N. D. Moharo

Critical Thinking: Blue Light and Sleep

To the Idle Mind,
    Whether or not a theory is correct is not always important. Sometimes, the important thing is to exercise the mind by practicing critical thinking. Musing is essentially just that: critical thinking. When we speak out our thoughts, it can help put them in order. We might find flaws in the thinking, but the lessons we learn from the process can assist us in finding those flaws faster in the future. In today's post, I don't really care so much about if my theory is true, but rather that you have an example of the critical thinking process. More research could certainly go into this topic and if you have comments and thoughts, I would be glad to hear it. Enjoy.

N. D. Moharo

    I've lately been having trouble sleeping. It's not so much about falling asleep at night anymore but waking up in the middle of the night and being unable to return to dreamland. I'm certainly guilty of using computer screens at night, but I try to at least have them off 1 hour before going to bed. Unfortunately, I might need more than one hour, but what's the problem with computer screens to begin with?
    I've heard that the culprit is Blue Light and maybe bloggers recommend installing a program called f.lux to adjust your PC's light at night. In fact, Google and Amazon recently updated their own applications and tablets to enable the same thing. Apparently, using warm colors like orange and yellow instead of Blue is more conducive to sleep, but why?
    I recall reading that the warm colored light might remind our brains about candlelight or the incandescent lights we used before bedtime and therefore our bodies get ready for bed. I will note that I recall finding it easier to fall asleep when I have the light on. Maybe the reason why was because of the warm orange glow filled the room and that helped negate the blue light from electronics. However, I doubt that's the case since that doesn't explain the physiological aspects of our bodies. We didn't always have fire (or maybe we have, but that's up for debate), so how can warm color lights have been useful for telling our bodies to prepare for sleep? In fact, when I look outside at night, I often think of the Moon as giving off a blue light, even more so than the Sun. So where in nature do we see Warm Colors to signal going to bed?
    Sunset! If you think about it, most people in the old days probably didn't stay awake long after sunset until the discovery of fire. With the warm colors of the sky to signal the day is about to end, our bodies probably took that cue to say, "prepare for sleep." Since the farming life was work while the sun is out, people would wake at or before sunrise and then sleep after sunset. There must be a reason that it used to be that the day was considered over after sunset (Hence, the Sabbath for the Jews began on Friday night, not Saturday morning).
    What do you think? Is the blue light thing a myth or reality? Is there somewhere else in nature that we see warm colors to signal going to sleep? Don't be afraid to share your respectable thoughts.

Shared Post: Magic Confusion, LOTR, and Shining

Sharing this post from J. D. Nyle (with permission, of course). After going through this, I actually recommend that you read his novel even more. For those who haven't read Neostriker: Shining, scroll to the bottom for important terms and definitions. Now for the post, though it's probably easier to read on his blog at http://neostrikershining.blogspot.com/2015/11/magic-confusion-lotr-and-shining.html :



Society today has an interesting practice when it comes to words and meanings. They change the definition of something but then try to imply it was always the case. For example, the definitions of “witches” and “magic” are being changed while the creators imply that it was always this way. I find it interesting and terrifying because of the implications of changing these definitions can have.

When you take something that is by nature evil, such as magic, and then strip away the elements that make it evil, you have something completely different. Even though you may end up with the same word, the substance that makes up the word is now completely different. However, if you were to go back in time, people would not accept your "new definition" because it would not correspond. While you may be able to "re-cast" the old word to fit your new definition, you cannot impose your new definition on old interpretations of the word. The fact that you had to change the definition means that you understand they are different. Hence, what we must be careful of is that when we teach our children the concept of "good magic," they might not be able to distinguish the old definition and therefore think what is evil to be okay.

Definition of Magic

Now what does this have to do with Neostriker? There were no witches or apparent magic in Shining. As for my next novel, there won't be witches yet, but there will be magic according to what I have determined to be its original meaning. Magic is the use of evil spirits (or evil nature) to do "your will" with the twisted notion that you have power over them. In the new and modern confusion, you can see traces of this definition present. The problem is that authors did not properly convey this when they wrote their stories and their influence made it even worse.

By “authors”, I'm referring to the likes of J. R. R. Tolkien and C. S. Lewis. When you read their stories, they indicate that their meaning for "magic" is different, but they never explained why or how it's different. So when new authors recall their stories, these new authors remember that, "since those guys used magic for good, it must be okay." In these minds, magic is a tool and the evil stems from the purpose it's used for. A recent series I saw that followed this line of logic was BBC's Merlin. However, this isn't what Tolkien or Lewis had in mind when they used the word.

For the old and venerable authors, magic is how the humans described what they saw but could not rationally explain it. The analogy would be that if we took a flashlight to medieval times, they would not be able to understand the concept of electricity and therefore it would appear as "magic". In Tolkien's case, there is a section of the Fellowship of the Ring that explains it's advanced science that we would be unable to comprehend.

Now it could be said that Tolkien failed to easily convey the difference between the "magic" that corresponds to my earlier definition and "magic of nature". For example, powers that are intrinsic to the nature of the being can be considered as okay and as a tool. In this case, Gandalf as the wizard (or Tolkien's equivalent of angels) is okay, but a normal human who studies to become a warlock is not. This is because, even in the magic of nature, there is evil when one tries to grasp for it, such as the One Ring from Lord of the Rings.

Problem 1: Grasping

When you look at the One Ring, I recall it being referred to as a "magic ring", and that is key. We often assume that its power is simply to make one invisible. However, that doesn't make sense when you read the "Ring Monologues" each character has when presented with it. In fact, both Isildur and Sauron had the ring but never turned invisible. The ring's power was actually to amplify an aspect of the nature of a character to the point that it corrupts. Hobbits are described before as already good at hiding and so invisibility makes sense. Sauron was powerful and so the ring granting him even more power makes sense. Gandalf mentions that he would initially use the ring to help his magic for good but he would eventually become worse than Sauron. The thing is that evil happens when a character tries to grasp for the Ring or, in Sauron's case, all of the rings. However, when the ring comes to a character, they are eventually able to get rid of it, with the exception of Isildur. Those who grasped: Sauron, Boromir, and Gollum. Those who didn't grasp: Bilbo, Frodo (until the end), Gandalf, Aragorn, Faramir, and Sam. The ones who grasp are seeking magic to do their will, but those who didn't were able to overcome their own desires for the good. In this sense, you can say magic is the tool for the author to develop his characters, but you should still never grasp for it.

Something N. D. Moharo says is that "tragedy occurs when someone does something they were not supposed to or not do something when they were supposed to." This falls in line with what I am saying about grasping. For example, if I'm driving and want to make a turn, I need to check to make sure there is no one in my way. Even if I really want to make the turn now, I must wait and allow the right moment to come. Otherwise, I might hit someone. That would have happened because I turned when I wasn't supposed to; I grasped at the ability to turn instead of waiting for my turn. One problem with magic as I defined it is that you are trying grasp for something to happen instead of letting it happen (more on that in my novel).

Problem 2: Calling of Evil Spirits

The second problem with magic is the calling of evil spirits. Evil spirits don't change. Hence, the only reason why evil will help you is if they believe you will cause a greater evil. Therefore, the use of magic will lead to evil unless you are able to break from it.

This part of the traditional definition is perhaps played with the most. When authors say that their definition of magic is that it’s a tool and of the nature of the character, that can be okay. However, if that’s the case, they cannot use spells or enchantments. The nature of spells indicates that another spirit is being called and therefore contradicts the idea that magic is part of the nature of a character.

The second aspect authors may play with is by suggesting that spirits can change. However, there is a philosophy that probably stems from Thomas Aquinas or Aristotle and Buddhism (if I'm interpreting the idea of reincarnation correctly) where spirits cannot change unless they have their own body. It's interesting because it could mean that the test of the angels was that they were given bodies. In fact, it could be that C. S. Lewis was onto something when writing the Magician's Nephew in that "angels" actually had their own world with a morality similar to our own and its time finished before our own world began (or maybe they existed before the dinosaurs). Anyways, hence the old understanding of magic is that evil spirits will always be evil, hence summoning them is evil.

Problem 3: Possession vs Inspiration

The third problem with magic is what essentially becomes possession. This occurs when you seek a spirit's power and they give it to you, linking you to them. You may think you are in control, but slowly and surely, you surrender one part of yourself after another. In stories, it'd happen like this: "I cannot do that now, but if you do this, then you'll have that power." Sometimes authors are nice and blatantly write it as "surrender your soul and you will have all the power you want." Now let's mark a distinction. Evil spirits possess; good spirits inspire. That's important because that's how it applies in Neostriker.

When I wrote Shining, I didn't have this full understanding of magic. As a result, you get an idea that it's the Asens that give David his powers, but it's supposed to be that they guide David to manifest and grow his own spirit. I actually determined this when preparing for my next novel (still trying to figure out a good name for it) so when I went back to edit Shining for publication, I tried to hint towards and explain this logic properly. The funny thing is the misconception actually makes sense in Episode 11 and is completely appropriate. In that episode, an evil spirit/Dark Power starts the process of "surrender for power". To contrast, Zel as a good spirit only assists, guides, and protects. With inspiration, there is still fullness of freedom in your actions, and nothing is sacrificed except for perhaps your ego.

Something you must be careful of is the nature of possession. Throughout human history and the cultures of the world, no one is able to free himself from possession. It always requires someone else or God to intervene. This is because of three things: 1) the evil spirit is more powerful than you simply by nature otherwise you wouldn’t use them; 2) The spirits can convince you that they are part of your mind and hence the actions are your will; 3) Only those siding with the powerful Good Spirit (aka God) can cast them out.

Summary and Closing

In summary, Old Magic is the use of evil spirits (or evil nature) to do "your will" with the twisted notion that you have power over them. This old meaning indicates the three things evil of magic: Grasping for something you shouldn't be; Calling upon evil spirits; and what amounts to as possession. Therefore the opposite of magic is: patience and self-sacrifice, the avoidance of evil spirits, and inspiration.

Not too long ago, N. D. Moharo, in a mutual exchange of ideas, brought up in my mind that people are skeptical about the idea of the Holy Communion changing from bread to the body of a God but they practice something very similar when it comes to definitions. I saw this to be true when I was playing a demo for a game and I came across the concept of good witches. I originally meant to cover the evil nature of witches but magic was the first step. However, I do hope you appreciated this insight not only into the philosophy of magic, but also the look into the process of writing Neostriker: Shining. If you want a more clear explanation on how Neostriker is advocating the defeat of magic, feel free to say so.

J. D. Nyle

Terms and Concepts

P.S. For those who haven't read Neostriker: Shining, here is a brief explanation of the terms used:

    David is the main character of the story who has the ability to don special armor and become a "Neostriker". It's revealed halfway through that this armor is a manifestation of his own spirit/soul called "neo" and therefore the term "Neostriker" means "Spirit Striker".

    Asens are also revealed halfway through to be spirits. Zel is the Asen who helps David grow and become more powerful.

    The Dark Power is the source of evil and hence, for the purpose of this essay, can represent magic.

For those who want to read Shining, I shared the entire story here on blogspot. You can find the links to each episode/chapter at http://neostrikershining.blogspot.com/p/full-story.html or click "Full Novel" on the top bar

I also shared half of it on Wattpad if you would like to read it on your tablet. If you like the story, please tell your friends. I would totally love to publish a hardcopy version to make it easier to read but I need support. At the moment, the only thing I can add to it is a page for each episode devoted to how I designed the chapters, characters, and ideas that changed. Unfortunately, that alone isn't enough to convince publishers that it will sell so I need some vocal support. Maybe we need a twitter campaign #publishNeostriker

Concerning Beauty

To the low in self-esteem,
    It's amazing the things we do in the pursuit of beauty. The funny thing is that "perfect beauty" is never truly obtainable except by accepting yourself as you are. Yes, this sounds cliché, but let me explain it by using a certain well-known anecdote.
    It is certain that you have heard the phrase, "Beauty is in the Eyes of the Beholder." This is certainly true, but why? The quick answer would be to define Beauty as "The Proper Order of Things." Yes, that may sound weird, but it is the answer. When you look at someone and consider the beautiful, it's because you see the combination of features in the correct order and proportions. Consider this chart I grabbed from LifeHacker:

What this chart indicates is that there a certain hairstyles that match and flatter certain shapes of faces. Now will this aesthetic change? Probably. Why? Because what we associate to be the correct order tends to be what we see the most. So if some model with a square face becomes popular with a very short haircut, that will influence our perceptions of beauty. The word "influence" is important because it hints towards how we developed our sense of beauty: through our experiences in childhood.
    When we are children, we are heavily influenced by what we see, whether on television, magazines, or our parents. The style you like the most is probably the one your parents had while you grew up. For example, my mother had long hair for most of my life, but when I encountered a woman with really short hair, it scared me or I felt repulsed. However, the more time I spent with her, the less apprehensive I would become, and when her hairstyle changed, I was confused. So if you want a hint about what sort of people would find you the most attractive, find the people who had parents like you.
    This concept of influence is another reason why I object to makeup on women and airbrushing in magazines. Even as adults, we are influenced by what we see. Hence, if we only see these "perfect models," it corrupts our sense of beauty to something that isn't real. I often tell my lovelier other half that I like seeing her without makeup and that it was important to see it early on in the relationship. Women often have a reasonable objection: "if he cares so much about what I look like, there's a problem." Of course, the counter is, "Since you care so much about how you look by putting on a fake face, there's a problem." I also ponder that if "Women are the fairer sex," why do they need makeup or show cleavage? The answer is they don't need makeup or to show skin.
    I mentioned that it's important to see the face without makeup early in the relationship, and I hinted to the reasoning. The longer you go without showing your true face, the more likely he will be apprehensive when he sees it, especially if you use a lot of makeup. This is because the first impressions have solidified and the proper "order" in his mind for you is what he has seen the most. But when he sees your real face in the beginning of the relationship, he can then say "That is the proper order for her. I like the way she naturally is." Lastly, if you can feel comfortable with your "flaws" around your beloved, then you'll feel more beautiful yourself which leads to a better beauty that others will notice. So yes, "Beauty is in the Eyes of the Beholder," and the one you want to impress the most is yourself but that is done by accepting yourself as you are.

With Love,

N. D. Moharo

P.S. In this letter, I only covered visual beauty. There are other things that aren't so much visual as they are representative, such as a smile. While a smile is what you see, it's also something you can hear because the voice sounds different with a smile than a straight face or a sad one. While some people can adjust their smiles to be the most flattering, the natural smile evokes joy and when your friends see that, they feel happier as well. This "happiness" is also considered a thing of beauty because we see that as the proper order of things in pleasant circumstances. So if you smile more, you will also feel more beautiful.

Language Theory

To the Communicators,   

    Undoubtedly you have heard over and over that it's harder to learn a new language when you're older than when you are younger. I can say that it makes sense for a number of reasons, and I can even give some analogies as to why that is the case. However, I want to discuss learning a language in general as we did with our primary language.

    When we were toddlers, as we did not have the ability to comprehend, we were allowed to eavesdrop and listen to people speaking all the time. This allowed us to subconsciously learn the different sounds we can make.

    However, when it comes to understanding someone, speed is key. Not only the speed at which the other person speaks, but the speed at which you can translate what was said. It's often not recognized as such, but our brains actually translate from our "primary" language to our imagination. This is why when someone says "pink elephant" you "immediately" think of one. Your brain did a translation of the words and converted it into the image. This might also explain why abstract thinking can be so difficult to teach and learn. Also, the reason why learning a second language is hard, at least by the current methodology, is because we go through an additional translation process. This slows down our comprehension speed.

    Perhaps the biggest thing that aids in our comprehension speed is the phrase "predictive analysis". You may have heard that with computers and artificial intelligence, but it's actually what we practice when we listen. The most famous example is when couples are able to confidently and accurately finish each other's sentences. When we are able to predict what is about to be said, that allows our brains to comprehend much faster. This is also why when we encounter some words we don't know or a pronunciation we are not familiar with, our comprehension drops.

    This is why lectures need to be slightly slower than normal conversation. It's also why if it's too slow that we fall asleep. When we cannot predict what is going to be said next, we need time to comprehend it. However, if we get to the point where we do know what is being said, holding it in our fast memory too long is just exhausting. This is because what happens is our brains are telling us the same predicted word over and over again which breaks the string of words you had already understood. In other words, by speaking too slowly, it actually creates more work for the listener to comprehend.

    To be fair, the mind does offer a few tricks into understanding things we don't know. The one we are familiar with is context. Take the name Nick for example. When there is no context, the mind assumes that someone saying the word "Nick" is calling a person (or a dog) but in the context, "I made in the nick of time," a person named Nick will rarely assume he's being called. This is because the context helps clue in the meaning of the sentence. Likewise, by reading the context, one is able to assume what the meaning of an unknown word is and progress. Context also happens to be the key for "predictive analysis".

    Because the context is the key to understanding something, that is why it is not enough to repeat vocabulary when learning a language. By practicing sentences and grammar, you are able to learn context of the phrases and better predict them when someone is talking to you. I often find myself having to listen to a conversation twice, and I figure out that I knew the words but I couldn't comprehend them fast enough to understand the sentence the first time. The more you practice, the more you are able to sort and grasp the individual words and sentences. By doing this, you speed up the translation process to your brain and develop your predictive analysis and with those taken care of, you are on your way to mastering a language.

    Anyways, that is enough theorizing today. Hopefully you find this useful if you are studying a new language. If you think it is lacking, then feel free to send me a comment.

Happy Communicating,

N. D. Moharo

Relationship Fights: Avoiding and Recovery

To the Battle-Torn Lovers,

    Fights with your significant other are bound to happen. There's a saying that the people we hurt the most are the ones closest to us. However, the more the problems that arise are dealt with without fighting, the better. How can we avoid escalating these problems into "battles"? What can be done afterwards? I actually recently found the answers to the first question and its amazing how obvious it should be.

    I just saw a program about scolding and the first step for "good scolding" was as follows: Confirm the Facts. So many of the "fights" I had with my lovelier other half lately could have been avoided if she asked me if her conclusion was correct before acting up. This is because we as a society have an unfortunate tendency to mistake thoughtfulness for thoughtlessness. One example was she cooked dinner but concluded I didn't appreciate it because I didn't say "Thank you." What we eventually found out was that I kept saying what I thought to mean "Thank you for the meal," in her native language but it didn't. Hence, the stress and conflict could have avoided if she asked, "Do you appreciate my cooking?" instead of concluding that I didn't and become cold (note: she's a fantastic cook).

    Something that should be avoided is the assumption the other knows what he or she did wrong. This is because we feels most of our actions are justified until we are proven wrong. Remember the story about cooking? I tried to say thank you in her native language because such efforts tend to be the best received. I failed but that was because the phrase I used was translated as "Thank you for the meal" in the language course I was listening to. I should have tried saying both in English and her language, but I didn't know that until she pointed it out.

    Another thing to avoid is stopping the communication. The point of fights is to communicate what your are feeling, but if one side stops it, then there is nothing that can be done but determine the relationship is over. I cannot think of a more damaging blow to the communication between a couple than hanging up the phone or walking away in the middle the other's explanation. It does not matter if the explanation is good or bad. When you sever the communication, it is YOU who burned the bridge because by doing that, you just expressed that you do not care to listen to the other. If this happens, QUICKLY APOLOGIZE! Otherwise there will be no confidence you can ever communicate properly and your relationship is over. If you do not care to listen, it shows that you do not care to love.

    Speaking of Love, that is truly the key to not only avoiding the fights, but also the recovery from them. I could ramble on about how "love is putting the other's needs before your own" but I've already explained that in a few of my letters. This time I'll explain the Love Language theory in how you can express your love to your beloved and have it well-received. There's a book by Dr. Gary Chapman that claims we all have a Love Language. This is how we express and receive love primarily. Remember how I mentioned about speaking in your beloved's native tongue, the theory is the same here. Even though you are saying the same thing, it won't mean as much as when said with the primary language of love.

    So do we have to learn French? Not at all, unless your beloved is French with a certain love language. Dr. Chapman lists 5 languages that we speak and they are as follows: Words of Affirmation, Quality Time, Acts of Service, Gifts, and Physical Touch. Let's divide those and very briefly explain what they mean.

Words of Affirmation: Positive feedback. When someone does something, they like to be praised for their good work or effort. A woman may want to hear she's beautiful and thanks. A man may want to hear good job and thanks.

Quality Time: These are the people who want your attention. Just being with them but buried in your phone would actually be worse than not being with them. They may not know what to do, but they know they want to be with you.

Acts of Service: Surprise breakfast in bed is the most famous example. These people respond greatly to receiving what may appear to be trivial acts such as making their coffee in the morning.

Gift Giving: This person loves Christmas Gift Exchanges. Not only do they feel the saying that it's great to give, they also like to receive. The gifts don't necessarily need to be expensive. They can be letters, a flower, or even a couple pieces of chocolate.

Physical Touch: Hugs. If they see something cute, they likely want to hug it. Warm touching is what these people respond to the most. They are also very sensitive to being pushed away, especially if they are trying to hug you.

    It is important to know these languages because it will help drastically when your spouse says, "I don't feel like you love me anymore," even when you say the words "I love you" every morning. This would be because words are not his or her love language but maybe gift giving is. The reason why we don't know this when we are dating is because we naturally do all five. While it would be great to continue to do all five, it's most important to focus on the top two or three that your loved one communicates with.

    Dr. Chapman also points out that everyone has a "Love Tank" that needs to be filled through these Love Languages. Something that should be noted is that after a fight, the Love Tank can get near to empty and if it stays down there too long, that's when threats of break ups start to happen. Something you really don’t want to do is tell your beloved that you don't love him or her. Therefore it is crucial that you try to communicate with the Love Languages after or during a fight. For example, if Physical Touch is the primary language for both of you, Hug. This is why you may have heard of the term "Make-up Sex," it works for some people because of the language. You may have heard that it's important to give each other some time to organize your thoughts, but only do that after you've convinced each other you still love one another through those languages. Words may not be enough. As I mentioned before, you do not want to sever communications and it's more the case when you both are low in your Love Tanks. It's also not going to help if Quality Time is the primary or secondary language.

With Love,

N. D. Moharo

P.S. The Love Languages don't apply just to romance but also to our daily lives with friends and relatives. Try using them and see how much your relationships grow.

Does the World Lead to Happiness?

To the People of the World,
    I ask you to consider the messages of the world. Do those things actually lead to happiness? Or do they actually conflict, leading only to confusion and eventually despair? Take for example the content of movies and prime television. Here, we can see that as long as it makes you "happy" it's perfectly fine to cheat on your wife and have an affair. Switch to the news and we see that having an affair can cause a man to lose everything he owns.
    Consider the World's opinion on sex. Do the people who follow the message for free sex end up happier than those who practice a more "traditional" way? In the world's way, it preaches that you can never be satisfied while the other says you can. In this sense, they both are true. In the way of the world, where you let your sex drive take control, there will always be that dissatisfaction and thirst for more. The reason is not only because of the psychological studies many have shown sex to be like a drug in this case, but because in that way you never find what you truly want. Love. The so-called "traditional" method of sticking with one spouse through good times and bad emphasizes that Love is the goal of man. This is why you can be satisfied with just one person.
    I mentioned before in my previous analysis on impatience that Love is "to will the good of another, even at your own expense," or as it was said in Frozen, "putting someone else's needs before yours." There's this interesting phenomenon where the people are at their happiest when they serve with love. I don't need to tell you how many of my friends say their best experiences were volunteering in a third world country. There are even a few Youtube videos that end with something along the line. Why is this?
    I am actually currently reading a book to help explain someone's work on the Body and Sexuality. One theory that sounds really nice stems from the Judeo-Christian belief of Man being created in God's image. I know I've heard that many times with little meaning. I've heard that's the source of Man's dignity but that doesn't mean much to the modern world. However, there was one connection the book made that was very interesting, "God is Love." If God is Love and Man is made in the Image of God, then that means the ultimate goal of Man truly is to Love.
    Is there proof to this concept in nature? If we consider the nature of man, we would reach that man is a social animal. This is proven through not only how we reproduce but how dependent we are on each other's skills and knowledge. I may not be able to farm, but I can develop programs to make it easier to farm. However, if there weren't farmers, then I wouldn't be able to develop those programs. In order for us to reach our highest potential, we are dependent on others and there is nothing wrong with that.
    Consider also how different we act when we feel loved versus not loved. With the latter, we consider suicide but with the former, we are "full of life." Love gives us life, but only to us, but to those around us. A woman in love's smile is enough to brighten any cloudy day. I came home from a bad day at work and my love's smile got me laughing along that I didn't care about the problems I had anymore. Did I need sex from her? No, just her loving face was enough to make me happy.

    So I leave you with this to consider. With Love being so crucial to our lives and the World having a twisted perspective that actually diminishes it rather than grows it, we ought to be careful when accepting its recommendations. Sometimes Good triumphs and the Good Movies get acclaimed, but that isn't often. I have found that in most "Critically Acclaimed" films, there is something that twists the concept of love, particularly the objectification of women. If you want to know if a movie has something like that with few spoilers, I use the website Plugged In which divides the content into categories of content. I may not always agree with what they is positive or negative, but the division is always helpful.

 With Love,

N. D. Moharo

Concerning Ideologies

To the People,
    You may recall I wrote to you before expressing my idealogy. In there, I described it as "Idealism with relation to Reality" to symbolize that I strive for ideals but accept the reality of the failures and that some people will strive to oppose them. I also pointed out that I would not consider myself a conservative nor a liberal.
    The current situation is even more true as I have come to realize these terms are relative names that mean different things in different places. For example, the Liberal Democratic Party of Japan is considered the "conservative" party. Meanwhile, "conservatives" in Ireland are okay with things that "conservatives" in America wouldn't be. Why should I associate myself with a label that would misrepresent my ideals in a different places? By coming up with a statement that people don't think of, it forces people to actually examine my thoughts and ideals and perhaps we can have a conversation.
    Another thing I learned recently is that coming up with names doesn't help, especially as we stereotype people with them. Why should I call anyone in a debate anything but his or her name? I certainly have complaints against both the Republican and Democratic Parties of the U.S. but just because one person associates with either doesn't mean much unless they are a politician. What someone pointed out was that when we labeling people, then we start to narrow our focus instead of trying to see the big picture of how everything fits together. This is partially because we then try to either stick with the association or prove we aren't. Either way, we become distracted from the main conversation and there will not be any progress.
    So have my ideals changed? They are still taking shape and there are things I can still learn. What I want you to take from this is to join me in trying to break from the chain of "labeling" and instead focus on addressing the subjects at hand.

Peace,

N. D. Moharo

Information about the Gaming Blog site

So this has been on hold for a while. There is still the intent to start another blog site focused on gaming though circumstances kept us from launching when I expected. However, we are still accepting applications through our google form if you are interested in joining the writing team. Here is some information about our policies and goals


About Reasonable Gaming

E3 2015 gave a glimpse into a nasty part of the gaming community. Combined with the recent Gamergate scandals and so on, there is a need for a sanctuary for "Reasonable Gamers." This blog will not be relaying gaming news but rather opinions and game reviews. The goal is to encourage proper discourse in conveying our likes and disappointments. As such, the policies center around these ideas.

Policies

• As we are not an official organization and will not be represented at conventions, you are free to be anonymous, meaning you can write under a penname
• Improper language is not tolerated. If you include bad language or swearing, they will be edited or removed.
• Comments will begin as slightly moderated to ensure no spamming of offensive material
• As much as we prefer good writing, it is not a requirement
• We do value integrity in your posts. Please only share what you have written
• Do not use this site as a means to promoting controversial ideals. This site is so that all gamers can find some peace and interesting ideas instead of being preached. The mainstream sites like IGN and Kotaku do enough of the latter.
• Currently no plans to monetize anything on this blog. If the idea comes up, it will require a majority
• All writers are seen as volunteers and so any dismissal will be notified before termination and given the reasoning for termination.
• Men and Women are equal and anything that promotes the objectification of one or the other may result in termination
• Staff should also treat each other with respect. Failure to do so may also be grounds for termination
• You maintain the rights to the content you write. If you want to share it on other sites and blogs, go ahead. We would appreciate a share link to this site though

Ideals

• Mission Statement: Encourage proper discourse in conveying our likes and disappointments
• Gaming should be a pleasant experience and opinions should revolve around ideals of enjoyment
• Nothing Controversial or too political in order that this site may stay a sanctuary to those just interested in gaming
• No console war garbage
• No harassment of other gamers
• No harassment of the staff

If you would like to join the staff, fill out the following google form. Note that you will need a Google account in order to write for us since this is through Blogger.

Idealogy Compatibility Test

To the politically minded,

    Sometimes I feel like many people haven't thought much about their ideals but just adopt them because "they sound good." In their true nature, they probably are good but oftentimes they are twisted or not properly taught and so people use them in ways that actually act against them. Here, I will give a list about some of these Ideals and discuss them.

Censorship: What this means is the ability to effectively control what someone else will see. People tend to think of this as a violation of Free Speech, which it certainly can. On the other hand, if you don't allow for any censorship, then you forfeit any right for arguing against anyone using profanity or hate speech. The ideal of proper censorship is that it encourages good things, especially for children as they are in their formative years, while also limiting offensive or distracting material. Hence, censorship is not evil in itself but can be used for evil.
     Consider this analogy for censorship. Your child is a plant in your garden. As it is your garden, you have the full right and duty to determine how it is raised. You can ask for assistance and pay a gardener or you can let anyone do whatever. If you leave the plant unattended and free for anyone to dump whatever they think is good, you will undoubtedly get something toxic that will kill the plant, undoing all the good stuff people and you put in to help raise it. A plant requires a lot of good water an nutrition, but it only takes some bad water to kill it. Another thing about censorship is that it can take bad water and filter out all of the bad stuff so the plant only receives what is good.

Free Speech: This comes under fire a lot due to hate speech, profanity, and art. Something to consider is the thought behind Free Speech or rather Freedom of the Press. First off, not everyone has a right to know everything otherwise we would have to give away our Intellectual Properties, Defense secrets, as well as social security and privacy information to our enemies and the world. The idea for Freedom of Press is that the government cannot force the press to publish lies. So when the media does publish lies on their own, especially with rumors, that is a violation of the nature of that freedom. I would argue further that the construing of words from people to incite rage where there shouldn't be is also a violation (such as done with headlines concerning Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas' recent dissent).
    Speaking of the dissent, that is the proper ideal of Free Speech. Free Speech is meant for people to speak their mind freely to bring up their concerns and ideas for action. All efforts to suppress such expression (such as by labeling it "hate" when it isn't, or construing a headline to make it appear negative) is an evil practice of censorship. This is because the true motivation is not really the care of the people, but that the people agree with you, even though you may be wrong. Free Speech is to allow other people to express their ideas in an environment so that people may reason if they are good or not. People have a right to express their concerns as that is how we learn what is important to them and how even if our goal is good, the method toward getting there is evil.

Summary: Proper practice of Censorship and Free Speech are compatible, but only if you live up to the ideals of both. Construe either and you have a contradictory understanding.


This ends part one of my explanation of ideologies. Hopefully this helps you obtain peace in understanding how these work together. Next time maybe I'll discuss Science and Faith and hopefully that will also resolve so many misunderstandings and illogical debates.

N. D. Moharo

Concerning Hate Speech

To the easily outraged,
    What is hate speech? It appears that if we want to censor something or someone these days, we claim it's hate speech. If someone were to point out that the Confederate flag never meant "We hate blacks!" but instead that "The United States receive their power from the States," I'm certain someone would claim to be offended and then classify that point as Hate Speech. Unfortunately, such claims are actually misuses of Censorship. Now censorship is not evil in itself (more on that another day), but it does get misused often and the classification of "hate speech" is a prime example.
    Let's consider the nature of hate speech. It is composed of two words, "hate" and "speech" which means it requires those two together in order to exist. While speech is present in most cases, the "hate" isn't. I recall reading on the media the outrage over a Nobel Prize winner for his "sexist" remarks about women in the lab. When I dived into it, I didn't see anything about hate, just what he had learned from personal experience. Does his personal experience mean it applies globally? Not necessarily, but rather than dishonor him, shouldn't we have tried to let him continue his work in an environment where he can work best? Everyone is distracted by one thing or another. Some scientists can love rock and roll to keep them focused (think NCIS), while others need complete silence. What does that mean? They are incompatible working together. As for the "sexist remarks," they merely corresponded to the taboo about dating a coworker and how creating those situations can cause problems. Because romance involves two parties but often is only one-sided, it shouldn't be hard to realize that it can be a problem. I could go on about this but I am beginning to digress.
    Back to that thing about the Confederate flag, I would argue the outrage people have over it would be better classified as hate speech than those who want to keep it (unless they fall under the group that believes it actually does express hatred). How bad is it? People today have become so single-minded that they refuse to acknowledge the other side's points and concerns. Why are we so focused on a flag that has no power to incite hatred in the people who know its real meanings instead of why a shooter was filled with hate in the first place? If a shooter went into a church, mosque, or synagogue holding a rainbow flag and began to shoot everyone, would gays surrender their rainbow flag to never be used or flown again? The original meaning of the rainbow was "Peace" (and has been since almost the beginning of recorded history) but if we focused on it like the confederate flag, we would forget that. I can tell you that there have certainly been a lot more hateful violence committed under that rainbow colored flag than the media will care to admit.

     Perhaps we should discuss what the word "hate" means. It is not merely disagreeing or disliking someone. Did you know that you can love your enemies, those you disagree with, and those you do not like? You can read more about that in my letter on impatience. Hate is the antonym for love. Just as Love desires what is good for someone else, hate desires what is evil for someone else. It must be realized that this desire is solely from the source, not the target. An expression of eliminating all blacks (like Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood) would be fair to call "hate speech". A commentary that most black men are in a bad situation because of their focus on gangs instead of studying cannot be classified as "hate speech". First off, the former example is an expression of desire while the latter is a commentary which is not expressing any desire but pointing out what appears to be a fact. The sad thing is today's society tends to attack things like the latter which are attempts to figure out the truth and make progress. When we use our power of "Censorship" by deeming it "hate speech" and attacking the person who said it, we not only make it difficult to address the problem he is trying to convey but we also show that we are truly a hateful society.

With Love,

N. D. Moharo

The Nature of Impatience

To the impatient,

    If you are like me, being told to "be more patient" is not really helpful. In fact, it's pointless and counterproductive. Why? Because it doesn't tell you anything about how to do so. Allow me to rectify to situation and explain what I have realized to be the causes of impatience and the keys to dealing with it. As some wise man said a long time ago, "Knowledge is the key to victory."

    I did a Google and Bing search on the word "impatient," and they define it as "having or showing a tendency to be quickly irritated or provoked." I will actually disagree with this as it inaccurately covers it. After all, it can be a single occasion where you are impatient, meaning it's not necessarily a tendency. What the definition did get right is that it is provoked, and that is what we will deal with today.

    Something I figured out a while back is the level of impatience a man will have will correspond to how important he feels his time is at that moment. Hence, a man who feels like he can go faster will be upset being behind a car that is going the speed limit. The next thing I discovered is that it also arises when feeling wronged. And so the man driving the speed limit will grow impatient at the man behind him who is honking because he is going the speed limit. Therefore, I suggest the two root causes of impatience are the perception of wasted time and feeling wronged.

    I pondered whether or not wasted opportunity would be a cause, however, that could actually be either "waste of time," "feeling wronged," or both. If you missed a green traffic light, you would be upset possibly because you have to sit and wait for a few extra moments when you are in a hurry or your effort was wasted and so you feel wronged, even more so if you missed a light because you stopped at the previous one or allowed someone to cut in front of you.

    So what are the keys to dealing with this? How do you become more "patient"? In this case, the root of patience is a combination of three things: Humility, Love, and Acceptance. Is it a coincidence that a good mother has these things in abundance? The same internet searches for "Humility" return the definition of "a modest or low view of one's own importance; humbleness." I will agree with this definition as it complements the point I made earlier about impatience linked with importance. If one does not view himself as too important, then it's easier for him to be patient.

    Likewise, the true definition of love (which Google completely misses but which Disney's Frozen hits spot on) is "putting someone else's needs before yours" or as I have said before, "to will the good of another, even at your own expense." This is why the greatest act is said to be "to lay down your life for a friend." Note that this is very different than the romantic notion of love which instead seeks your own pleasure. Seriously, who thinks that they want to date solely to make someone else happy? There is far more love from the people who refuse to date out of respect for someone else (and therefore refrain from cheating or adultery). This also explains the link between love and humility as it is far harder to love someone else when you consider yourself more important. The more humble you are, the easier it is to love everyone, including the poor and your enemies.

     The last key is acceptance. Something happened, and you can't change that. The only thing you can do is try to avoid it in the future. As a society, we focus too much on what we can do that we try so hard to control everything, including our sex and genetics. The problem about this thirst for power is that it can never be satisfied. We need to learn that there are some things beyond our control, and it's better that we never try to overcome it. If you learn to grow in these three things, then your patience shall increase.

    For my last point, I will argue that there are certainly some cases where it is okay to be "impatient." If you are able to do it respectfully, it is in your control, and all other methods have failed to convey the true urgency of the situation (one that is not selfish such as preventing a murder), then you may have a right and obligation to be upset with someone. However, if it is a case of oversleeping and running late for a meeting, that is not an acceptable excuse for being rude and driving poorly.

With love,

N. D. Moharo

A Possible Sister Blog concerning Gaming

    A long time ago, you might recall I wrote a few pieces about video games. I like to play video games and I consider them very useful for gathering insights for philosophy. However, this week's major video game conference, E3, has shown had bad the community can be at times. On the other hand, it's also useful to be able and see the good writers who are able to keep a cool head and thoroughly analyze things. Hence I came up with an idea
     I want to make a site, beginning small with a blog, that features cool headed writers to share their opinions and even reviews. I'm still thinking about the details of how it will work but I think it will be nice to see of a bunch of blog posts that are able to give well-founded opinions not based on rage. If you want to participate in this idea or have suggestions, leave a comment below.

Pondering the Five Proofs for the Existence of a God

To the Religious and Atheists,
    "There is no God" is a claim I philosophically can never claim. For all I know, that could be true, but as I pointed out in my essay about A Higher Power Through Technology, it can't be proven. It is far easier to prove that there is such a thing as a god than there isn't. The most famous of these are the Five Proofs which actually don't make the claim that the god(s) they are about is the same that different religions claim to exist. I will describe a quick summary but this is actually more to prep for my next "letter" in which I will speculate based off a few premises.
     So each of the Five Proofs concludes with "and this is what we refer to as a god." The capital "G" God is what I would refer to as the One that encompasses all five of the proofs but that itself requires some extra logic to connect them all. The first proof is the idea of motion and how nothing in the universe is able to move without having some start. Even in our bodies there is movement when we are still and perhaps that is the best explanation for why we can "stop" and move freely. So in that sense, the idea of a god is the "First Mover" which by definition means it is the first thing that causes motion. Yes, people ask "but who moved him?" but that is an invalid question as it goes against the definition of First. Perhaps the best explanation for understanding this concept is the one I gave in the essay I shared above.
    The Second proof is similar to the first one but is described as the Cause of All Things. After all, the one who puts everything in motion is not necessarily the creator. For example, someone can create a game, but I'm the one who starts it by pressing "play".
    The Third proof is the presence of miracles. Miracles by definition cannot be explained by science and there are still events that fit that criteria such as incorruptible bodies and instant disappearance of 20 pound tumors. Does this mean I believe the world was created in 7 days as described in the Bible? No, because our definition of a day back then revolved around the rising and setting of the sun which did not "exist" until like the 4th "day" according to that same Bible. Hence that was obviously literary (unless the concept of "day" refers to a "day in god's time" which is technically possible). However, I cannot wholly accept the theory of evolution without at the same time accepting the concept of a god because of how we evolved. The big question I have is "Why in the world where all organisms originated from a single cell would 'evolve' into something that requires two of us? Why would we do that especially for a species that takes 9 months to procreate and then years before we are even able to survive on our own?" We may control the earth now, but it certainly didn't start that way.
    The Fourth proof was the concept of a perfect good (or various degrees of things). This requires a few premises such as that "Evil is the absence of Good." I recall this as dependent on the fact that we can put things in order of goodness like the freedom of speech is better than an ice cream cone. While there are things that are subjective, there is a general order of goodness in the world. This proof also uses the premise "One cannot give what one does not have (or at least has the potential to give)" and since there is various degrees of goodness, there must be a highest good and proof calls that "what we refer to as a god."
    The Fifth I needed to look at Wikipedia to recall. But after I saw it, then I could see how it would made sense. I will just copy and paste what I found there

• Many things in the universe may either exist or not exist and are all finite. Such things are called contingent beings.
• It is impossible for everything in the universe to be contingent, for then there would be a time when nothing existed, and so nothing would exist now, since there would be nothing to bring anything into existence, which is clearly false.
• Therefore, there must be a necessary being whose existence is not contingent on any other being or beings.
• We call this being God.

     So I actually originally thought the Fifth proof was that there is Order in the Universe. That may be more linked to the Fourth one I relayed but it is something to ponder. If there is no order, then everything should be in chaos and not exist. But since there is an order to things such as the Laws of Physics that we still have not perfectly understood, there must be a being outside of the universe with the power to establish an order. So yeah, I think my analogy about technology actually really helps explain all of these "proofs."
      Now something I will point out is that I don't think any of these can prove that the ultimate superior being we collectively call "God" is the next level up, just that it is very reasonable that there is one. This is because we could theoretically create a virtual world that has the capacity to create their own stories and virtual worlds. This is the interesting thing about infinite because it can go one direction, but it can also have a start.

N. D. Moharo

The Secret of Loneliness

To the Lonely Hearted,
    I think I just realized the cause of loneliness. Loneliness isn't the feeling of being alone but rather the feeling of not having anyone close to talk with. This is why Facebook, though has the potential to cure it, usually actually makes it worse. It grants this idea that it should be easier to communicate with friends, but you begin to doubt how close your friendship is when you don't see replies. Because of this concept that Facebook makes it easy to communicate, the more so that it that not seeing a reply hurts. That doubt is the seed that you can't find anyone who truly cares. When you look at the number of "friends" it's made worse because the higher the number, the more you think that you have failed to find someone close. Even more so is when you see that number decrease.
    This is also the reason why people tend to feel lonely without their love interest. It's because that person tends to become the "close one" and depending on the level of intimacy, it's hard to match. Perhaps that is another reason why breaking up is so hard to bear and why some people turn suicidal in such a case. It's not a question of bi-polarism but rather the betrayal and mental closure. So what can we do to make things better? It's a actually as simple as letting a friend know that waking you up at 3 in the morning may be annoying, but you'll do it anyways. That's when you show that you do care.

With Care,

N. D. Moharo

P. S. As for the people who really don't feel like they have anyone to turn to, go ahead and leave a me a comment with an email address to communicate with.  I believe it is set up so that it requires moderation before it gets posted. Hence no one but me should be able to see it. I can't guarantee since I haven't seen any comments yet to test this theory. Just realize I normally only log in about once every two weeks, though I will do more if I find the need. I'm personally one of the people who cares about anyone who needs help. I think it's a requirement if you want to be an ideal friend.

Twitter Plans

Hello Everyone!
    Some of you may have noticed I started a Twitter account. In some respects, I was using Facebook like a twitter account by occasionally posting thoughts I had as well as links to my new blogs. However, I started to feel like Facebook was not the right place to post so often. While I will still post links to my new blogs, I've decided Twitter was better for doing more frequent posts. The only thing I am not a fan of is the 180 character limit. I had in my plan to start tweeting riddles but I'm not so sure if that would be a good idea or not. It might just be that I'll post the riddles on Facebook and leave the Tweets to daily quotes and ideas.
     Yes, I do hope that Twitter does in fact help attract more attention to my two blogs. However, I also see it as the other part of my goals for having this blog in the first place. One, I can communicate more easily with others. Second, I post quick and simple ideas as soon as I have them instead of developing to what I feel is appropriate for a blog. Third, it hopefully makes it easier for me to find other thinkers to help me develop new or old ideas. So if you want to follow me, you can find me at @ND_Moharo . Don't be afraid giving me suggestions on who to follow either.

N. D. Moharo

Movie Review: Little Boy

It is not often I write movie reviews. In fact, you might find it weird to see me post one on this blog. This film is an exception as it addresses a philosophical understanding. Not only that, but its themes cover the everyday social life and proper response in today's racist and anti-poor world. I do believe many critics will unjustly hate in their own form of racism on the basis of it being a "Christian movie," but if that's the case, any movie that merely has a Christian in it should be considered a Christian movie because this does no evangelizing. In fact, they never tell you which denomination this movie has. Instead, it uses your cultural knowledge to realize that this is a realistic setting and story. Anyways, I should get on with the review.

The movie is set in WWII California. Within the first few minutes you learn of most of the main cast and its themes. The main one advertise is Faith. One thing I love about this film is that it not only addresses the misunderstandings of the concept, but it uses them to its advantage. The childish innocence of the main character is perfect and was well-performed. the beauty of childhood, as this movie subtly reveals, is the hopefulness. The movie does a great job contrasting how people act with hope and how those without cope.

Another theme is the love between a child and his father. This actually ends up being the catalyst for everything. This too is shown through the actions of various characters, some of whom you may not realize until you sit back and then it hits you. No two people give the exact same response in any of these themes and so helps convince the audience that it's a real story.

You might have some tears due to the powerful performances concerning this love

The last theme is actually two concepts linked together and those are Racism and Friendship. In this movie, you can't talk about one without understanding the other. Like I said, the main advertisements focus on faith, but I think they would do well to advertise the racial elements as well. After all, how many movies do you know that talks about how the U.S. treated Americans of Japanese descent during the war? This movie covers it very well and focuses not only on the Japanese character's humanity, but also how he is a good friend.

As I mentioned before, the love between a child and his father is what prompts the developments of the whole movie. As the father goes to war, this little child, portrayed beautifully by Jakob Salvati, hears about the well-known saying about the "Faith of a mustard seed." Believing that if he has enough faith, he can bring his father back, he begins his quest to grow it. His given task by the local man of influence, befriend the Japanese man whom the entire town, including titular Little Boy, hates simply because of his heritage.

To do this, he is tasked with doing acts of human kindness, known to some as Corporal Acts of Mercy. This list includes Feeding the Hungry, Shelter the Homeless, Visit the Sick, etc. As he performs these actions, the audience gradually witnesses he and the Japanese man becoming friends. Hence, the truth of being humane on both sides overcomes racism and leads to friendship is portrayed and certainly something we need to learn in today's society. (A bit of trivia: it's a really quick glimpse so I am not entirely sure, but in typical directorial fashion, inside the Japanese man's house, there's a banner with the Japanese characters for Friendship, 友情).

The element of faith is shown throughout the film and how one event spurs different responses from different people. In general, these lead up to some of the humorous scenes or small bits of dialogue. While it is indeed predictable, the quality of the acting makes it enjoyable to watch anyway. I saw the movie twice (the first being quite a while now) and while I did not laugh as much as the first time, I did feel some strings on my heart pulled watching the solid performances.

It also shows how comics and heroes inspire children

As I mentioned before, Jakob is the real star among the cast though his name is not recognizable. Likewise, I doubt many have heard of Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa but his performance also is phenomenal as the agnostic man who doesn't let his victim hood degrade his humanity, just like Jakob in his bullying situation. Emily Watson, who plays a character named Emma (that must have been a joke about the typical confusion between the two actresses), portrays the typical 1940's mother who is capable of knocking some sense into her teenage son. David Henrie also does a great job of playing the older brother named London and the dynamic that results from all of the events. By the end, despite the hair color difference, that he is a brother to the little boy named Pepper. As the priest, Tom Wilkinson was perfect both vocally and visually.

Now when you have all of these famous names, that might affect how you judge their acting. Believe me though when I say that I didn't know any of these celebrities that I just mentioned. I thought some looked familiar but that was more thinking they looked like some old friends. The two actors I knew of, I missed their performances due to their very small roles. Hence, you could say I have very little bias in judging their performances. Now whether my critical eye is so great is another story.

The end result is what I consider to be a timeless story. While the action sets might not be perfect to the typical action fans, when you consider them from the eye of a child, they are just as they should be. The overall glow of some scenes help sell the nostalgia effect of a man reflecting on his life. Now is there anything that might offend people? When it comes to the racism, the film does not hold back but it also never encourages it. If you want to talk to your child about racism, this is a good place to start. The result is that we realize we were not perfect in the 1940's and how war causes unjust pain on the homefront. However, the presence of this evil makes it all the more sweeter when it is overcome by the innocence of a small child.

Tips on Dating: First Impressions

To the First Dater

    A year ago, I wrote a letter on the mentality for beginning a relationship and an explanation why the ideal method of starting off as friends first does not work as often as we like. This piece assumes you have already overcome that first obstacle and are preparing for a first date.
    In my letter from last year, I hinted that using "friendship" as a means to obtaining a romantic relationship is dishonest and fake. It is psychologically better for both parties if you are honest about your intents from the beginning or make up your mind about reality. Likewise, on the honest front, your first impression should be an honest one as that will save a lot of time and trouble.
    One time I went on a first date, I figured at some point that it wouldn't work out due to the impressions I was getting of her. While I believe we were both honest, I had a glimpse of her personality and saw that it didn't fit with mine. There is no second chance in making a first impression. As a tightly budgeted boy, I saw her never finish anything I bought for her in terms of food. While you can debate that love is more valuable than money, respect for another's income is also highly valuable. It's the worker's paradox that he wants to make money for his family and spend time with them but the family keeps spending all of the income so he has to work more and as a result is never with his family. Likewise, I hate seeing food wasted especially when I consider the poor who would have gladly eaten it.
     The funny thing about this whole experience was that I felt like I was being tested. Tests are important while dating. However, they should never be disrespectful. Showing up 5 minutes late by accident is a great way of judging how they react, but it's only valuable when it's not your fault. If you purposefully waited 5 minutes to show up, then you are revealing more about your own character than you are learning about your date. I personally highly value that people keep their word or have some valid explanation rather than finding out they were simply testing me. It's a dishonest trick and disrespectful and not a good way to begin a first date.
    So what are reasonable tests? Simply letting things happen. On the date I mentioned earlier, everything I got her either broke or was never finished. Yet I was still willing to give her a shot if she was too. As much as I had gathered we were not compatible, I also gathered she wasn't a bad person and so I was willing to go on a second date to see if it was just the circumstances of a horrible double-date. Needless to say, things happen and you can take into account the reactions later. If some item breaks and the accusation immediately comes that it was on purpose, then you probably aren't compatible. Either because the accusation was quick or because it really was on purpose. The only thing you should do on purpose is be respectful.

Have Fun,

N. D. Moharo

Test for How you View Sex

To the People in the Middle,    When a controversial subject arises, things tend to get divided into two but most people actually fall somewhere in the middle. For many cases, this is the right place to be, but that depends on what you consider are the extremes. Concerning the Indiana Law that fueled so much anger, though in my opinion was unjust anger taken to an extreme, the "controversy" was caused by extremists. The law itself was very much in the middle as it paved way for business rights. As Rick Santorum pointed out, though if you just read headlines, you probably just thought it was hate speech, that it would make it so gays running companies would be forced to produce something they would consider "anti-gay". Likewise, it would allow other restaurants to refuse to cater a KKK ceremony on moral grounds. If you read the law, you should realize that there is nothing against tolerance but rather being tolerant of business owners' morals and opinions. In this case, you either support the law or not, there's no middle ground. It's a shame that the non-supporters have done such a poor job of trying to get rid of hate due to their own hate crimes.
    Now I pointed out in a previous letter that the whole root for gay marriage debate is how you view sex. Here I will provide what must follow based off your choice. If you do not agree with any of the results, then you need to consider how you truly view sex and the reasoning behind it.

If you view sex to be as nature intended:

• You cannot use birth control or any sexual action that does not lead to connecting the two parts as nature designed. This means no to oral sex, anal sex, and no masturbation
• Pornography is a big no-no.
• You should be concerned with modest clothing
• Bestiality is definitely wrong

If you view sex primarily as a tool for pleasure

• You cannot have a problem with porn or prostitution
• You must have no qualms with adultery or cheating.
• Statutory rape is no problem. Whether or not Roman Polanski raped that 13 year-old girl or if she was consenting, there was nothing wrong. After all, he had the support of so many celebrities such as Penelope Cruz. Oh! That means there was nothing wrong with all of those cases we have been hearing about lately. And those Catholic priest scandals mean nothing.
• You have to accept gay sex as legitimate as well as incest and bestiality
• If you approve of gay marriage on the basis of "love", what logical argument could you possibly have against polygamy and incestuous marriages? There also is no point to marriage existing as a practice either. Perhaps that's why you never hear of any prior cultures ever attempting to approve the idea of "gay marriage" even in cultures where gay sex was abundant.
• Rape could be argued as an okay or acceptable practice. Especially if you are okay with dismissing some groups rights such as the case to refuse business to something they find objectionable. It would certainly only become more common. The more a mind is focused on gaining his own pleasure, the less he will care about others displeasure. Consider the boy in the U. K, who raped his younger sister just to "try it out" after watching porn. Likewise, that Roman Polanski case (though I don't dare dive into whether it was rape or not. He apparently acknowledged that he at least had sex with her even though she was 13). With so many celebrities supporting him, what can you expect?

Something I find interesting was to learn that many sexual diseases exist because the sexual act was not done as nature had prescribed. Now whether my sources were correct is another question, but it does warrant investigation. If they are true, does beg the question, why don't we simply do it properly and then the diseases will die out?

N. D. Moharo

Concerning Assisted Suicide

To the People,
    Evil never rests. As we speak, another grave evil is trying to make its way towards legalization and that evil is Assisted Suicide. Currently promoted by the organization Compassion&Choices (another organization with a misleading name), the idea is to legalize assisted suicide. I could argue in terms of morality why this should never be allowed to be made legal. Today, however, I shall try to appeal more to your social conscience and reason.
    Note that I began by addressing "the People." The word people is a collective noun, meaning it takes a group and unites them as one. This is the nature of society as it is made of up many various people but still one. That means if a part of society is being threatened, then all of society is being threatened. In case you believe the lie that the United States is an Individualistic Society, let me emphasize how false that is. Political motions are done through groups. Racism and Sexism show we judge individuals through groups. We sue corporations for actions of individual workers. People have a tendency to not act unless they are part of a group. Clicks are unfortunately very common. Also, we hate the idea of dictatorship where choices are made by an individual.
    Now that I've cleared up that idea, let me show you another nature of society. Society, by its nature, is made up of strong and weak. In a world where only the strong live, there wouldn't be a world. Everyone is weak at some point or another. Even if not physically weak, we become mentally or spiritually weak. People in all three stages are vulnerable and, as a society, we are required to protect them. Forget about Russia, ISIS, and Al-Qaeda for a second. If we allow such legislation to pass, America will destroy America. ISIS will not have to do a thing.
     Here are some of the consequences if we allow for legal Assisted Suicide

• That will be one more thing doctors will be known for Death instead of Life: Holland already has a special mobile unit to make house calls to kill people. Why should we trust doctors anymore if they aren't concerned for trying to save a life? Anti-vaccine movements will also gain momentum as they won't be able to trust their doctors.
• We tell our future generations that it is okay to commit suicide: And YES, that undermines ALL EFFORTS for Suicide Prevention! Were you sad to hear about Robin William's suicide? Prepare for more of that.
• In one way or another, people will be forced to commit suicide: When an "option" is given, pressure is built to force people to take that option. I shouldn't have to point out that there are many women who are pressured or forced to have an abortion against their will, but there are. Some mothers have to seek sanctuary in clinics to protect them from their parents or abusive boyfriends and others who threaten they will stop loving them (which of course indicates they don't love them anyways). This is why some clinics are very selective in who they allow to work for them as the mother's identities and location need to be kept secret. Now for cases concerning Assisted Suicide. Older generations as well as the weak and disabled youth will be pressured because they will be considered a "burden". There is also a story where a woman found that her insurance company would pay for her assisted suicide rather than for treatment. 
• The Death Penalty will never be taken away: After all, how is it we can kill ourselves, but not people guilty of heinous crimes such as mass murder? I'm personally torn on the issue as I can understand its purpose. On the other hand, I think J. D. Nyle brings up some good points in his short story even though I doubt that was his intent.
• Health Care will never improve: Health care improvements are made to accommodate the weak and elderly. If the demand is negated by the suicides of these people, investments in improved technology will decrease as both governments and private corporations will find less of a impulse to invest.
• Jobs will be lost: Can you imagine how many jobs are made because of the weak and elderly? Caregivers, teachers, programmers, and researchers all have jobs thanks to the market of the elderly and disabled. Job competition is already fierce, are you prepared to make it worse? 
• We promote a more selfish culture: Seriously, our parents spent years raising us. Mothers carried us in their belly for 9 months and went through perhaps the most painful experience. And, unless you are somehow an angel (who would also never consider assisted suicide), you repaid all of this with disrespect and occasional hatred. There is no just reason you cannot take care of them when they are old or weak.
• Who's asking for this? Who benefits from this? Certainly not the people whose lives are concerned. After all, if they want to commit suicide, they can easily do so. The fact that they would feel a need for "assistance" to commit suicide indicates they still desire life. My guess is that the people who want this are some insurance companies and the greedy or selfish family members. 
• Another method for murder. By making these "prescriptions" more easily accessible, that means people can request them and then use them to commit murder and try to obscure it by claiming "they wanted it". Of course, in my opinion, it's always murder.
• Doctors bring Despair, not Hope. Doctors already are known for being the ones who tell you when you are going to die. However, it is possible to interpret that as a warning sign to get your life back in order. Besides, not all doctor predictions are accurate. Someone who was told 6 months can still have 6 years. Secondly, if you despair because you are told you are going to die, let me tell you something, everyone will die. Some people would love to have an idea of how long they have to live. If you despair because you found out, then you should really think about your life and how you can make the most of it.
• Society will have even less Compassion. What are we telling the disabled? What are we telling their parent? That it's okay to kill their children? Disabled children actually bring more love into the world as those who embrace them truly grow to care and love others. However, if we give horrible parents an opportunity to kill their children (either through force or pressure), these seeds of love will only wasted

If you live in California, tell your Senator to vote against the legalization of Assisted Suicide. Here are a list of a few Senators who were listed as co-authors. I probably don't need to point out that they are all Democrats. However, this is something you will need to consider when the next election comes near.

California Assisted Suicide Senate and Assembly Supporters 

Hannah Beth Jackson (D-Santa Barbara), Mark Leno (D-San Francisco), Marty Block (D-San Diego), Isadore Hall (D-Inglewood,) Lonnie Hancock (D-Berkeley), Ed Hernandez (D-West Covina) Jerry Hill (D-San Mateo), Mike McGuire (D-Healdsburg), and Bob Wieckowski (D-Fremont); and they are joined by Assembly Members: Kansen Chu (D-Sacramento), Jim Cooper (D-9th district), Jim Frazier (D-11th district), Cristina Garcia (D-Bell Gardens), Bill Quirk (D-Hayward), and Mark Stone (D-Scotts Valley).

Choices: Right and Food

To the Common Man,
    I've made a point that to "Be a Man" is to "Be a Hero" and being a hero entails practicing virtues but why is it that we often choose evil in our daily actions? If I were to ask if you like good or evil more, I would assume you would pick good, otherwise we might need to have a discussion with the local authorities.
    Perhaps the best way to analyze our choices between good and evil is to look at food. Thanks to our knowledge of food, we know some our great for our bodies and others are incredibly bad for us, even deadly if not cautious. Some people might be able to survived a peanut related junk-food, but it will kill quite a few people.
    Let's take for example the oreo cookie. The chocolate cookie with some white stuff in the middle. Unhealthy but delicious to quite a few people. I use this for an example because it is my semi-daily reminder about this analogy. I decided that I will not eat anymore oreos. Some days, the temptation is not even present, but the days when there is a box of oreos on the snack table at work makes it far more difficult. This helped me realize that temptations only exist when you believe you can do something. This helps explain why the maxim "Great Power leads to Great Corruption" is true. Power is related to the word "potential" which means "the capability to do something." So when you have the power to do something, you are naturally tempted, especially when you think you can get away with it.
    I knew a girl who just a little bit of milk made her incredibly sick. However, she loved milk so much that she considered being sick worth it every now and then, like on the weekends. On the other hand, I would think that the days when she knew she could not take the day off, she would be able to resist the urge to drink milk.
    So why do we even eat these foods which are bad for us? Part of it is convenience. Some junk food is cheaper and more accessible than the healthy variety. For example, a box of cookies can cost about as much as an organic apple. Our mentality of trying to get the most for our money will act as an argument to buy the cookies when searching for snack food. Likewise, an apple treated with pesticides and other harmful chemicals may look bigger and be cheaper than the traditional organic apple grown without harmful chemicals. In that situation, we generalize ideas such as "apples are healthy" and ignore that and apple treated with bad chemicals is not healthy at all. Likewise, actions that normally would be good, are actually bad when corrupted with ulterior motives or methods. For example, protecting the country is a good deed. Torturing suspected terrorists, who may be very innocent, is evil. However, to the people performing this heinous crime, it's the most convenient or efficient method in their mind.
    Another reason why we choose evil is because we are corrupted. We get corrupted while we are young and the older and more "mature" consider it their job to corrupt the young and innocent. I don't watch TV much anymore because there is hardly a show that does not contain some sort of sexual exploitation of its feminine cast. CWTV's The Flash started off nicely and was showing why the Flash is a hero but before the end of its first season, it showed every female character in a bra on time or another, half of them leading toward sex outside of marriage. This "fanservice" corrupts the mind of the young men that it's okay to objectify women like so and to have sex outside of marriage. Add that this is a "superhero" show, and the effect is greater.
    Let me explain the logic of how something normally becomes an action. First comes the thought. The more you think about it, you begin to test the waters. You begin to speak about the idea, which of course strengthens thinking about it in the first place. Then you finally act. However, when you have a firm foundation in your character, then you are able to control those thoughts and prevent yourself from performing any bad action. As a child, it's harder to guide your thoughts and actions and so most children act on impulse. So when children are exposed to improper ideas and actions, they will more likely perform those actions.
    You probably heard about the study where a group of children are put into a room full of toys and a plate of cookies in the middle. They are told if they can wait a few more minutes, they will get more cookies. The children who easily distract themselves and play around can easily do this, but the children who constantly think about the cookies will not last the 10 minutes. I believe you could also conclude that the children who eat a lot of cookies will have a harder time resisting the urge to eat them than the children who grew up eating only healthy foods. After all, there are always those people who say they don't like something even though they never tried it before.
    So if we were never introduced to evil, would we always do good? Probably not since that society would never exist, at least in our current world. There is just so much evil that even if a group was close to reaching that point, some other group would work twice as hard to tear it down. I spoke a bit about that last time while discussing envy and how it destroys societies.
    What about in a perfect world where you couldn't choose to do evil? Wouldn't that be evil in itself? It would certainly sound like a violation of the concept of Free Will. However, I think the way popular culture has portrayed that ideas has been only in an evil communist or socialist setting in which no one can make any choice at all. But if we consider a society where choices do exist, just various levels of goodness, would that be wrong? The concept of free will is that we can choose how we act, but it doesn't always have to be between good and evil. It's like choosing between a house by the beach versus a house close to a school. Both have advantages and disadvantages, but both are good. Perhaps that would be the best society, but like I said, it would not last in our current world. But then again, that doesn't mean it's not worth working toward. If we distract ourselves by pursuing good, wouldn't that mean we won't choose evil? If that's the case, then society would at least improve in some sense, even if it's not perfect.

Let's Pursue the Perfect Good Together,

N. D. Moharo