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 

   
   

Envy and "Equality", The Destruction of Society

To the People and Society,
    Beware of Envy! This "Deadly Sin" is one of the quickest to destroying society and sometimes it takes only one with a voice to begin its warpath. Let me clarify a few things first before I explain. There's a difference between Jealousy and Envy. Jealousy is when you want something good that another has. This is a minor issue and can actually lead to people working to obtain that good properly. However, if you let it consume you, it becomes Envy which seeks the destruction of that good simply because you cannot have it. Does that definition make it clear why envy is evil? Because it seeks to destroy Good! The destruction of Good is never good and when you throw in such a selfish reason, Envy earns its place among the most despicable crimes in the human heart.
    Perhaps something that needs to be fixed in our minds is the idea of equality. People use "Equality" to try and justify their Envy and therefore destroy what is good. Throw away what idea you have about equality and reform it if necessary. Life can never have true equality because of four things, circumstance, free will, talent, and the presence of evil.
    Let's take a look at the game of Settlers of Catan. The game is relatively simple in concept. You claim an area which give you resources if the corresponding number is rolled. However, multiple players cannot claim the same spot because each "settlement" must be at least 2 lengths away from each other. There are good numbers, but even they are not rolled all of the time. An 11 has 2 chances of being rolled, but sometimes luck causes it to be rolled more than a 6 which has 5 chances of being rolled. This would mean the resources on an 11 would be claimed faster than the one on a 6. That is the idea of risk. It's never a guarantee, but the people who prepare for it will benefit as opposed to the people who build only on the 6. That's because there is timing, luck, and individual choices.
    We hear a lot that "All Men are Created Equal." This is true in one aspect and false in probably every other case. The idea is that is true is that every man's life is priceless. Every man, woman, and child should have a chance to live and make choices to try and better their situation. However, the idea of liberty also includes that we are responsible for our choices and so must live with the consequences, hopefully so that we won't ever make that bad choice again. If society believes it can always make the same bad choice and get away with it, then it will never stop making that choice. Look at the celebrities who escape jail for drunk driving. They still do it and it's because we allowed them to escape their just punishment!
    Now let's consider our talents. I can play the piano with both hands, but my older brother is physically unable to do the same and that is how he was born. I can write these letters but he can't even write his name unless someone guides the pen for him. However, I can't bring people together the same way he does. I can't lift people's spirits like he cheers people up. We are very different people and that is a result of birth as well as circumstance. The only thing we are equal in are in the fact that we share some genetics and a name and our parents love us both very much. But do you something? The idea of society is that we take our different talents and use them together to obtain progress.
    So I've already commented that Envy is a root cause of evil. After all, if everything that is good is destroyed, then what good is left? When Good is taken away, that means it is unobtainable which means there can never be used to reach progress. If governments are to be involved, it should be to preserve the good, not take it away.
    Let me show you how equality in all things is actually horrible. I think the best example of inequality that we actually depend on is the traffic light. Representing "equality" is the stop sign. Can you imagine how horrible it would be if every traffic light turned into a four way stop sign? That shouldn't be too difficult thanks to the existence of black outs that force the traffic lights to indeed become four-way stop signs. As a light, it can take 3 seconds to 2 minutes to cross the intersection. At a stop sign, you can never cross the intersection in 3 seconds unless you break the law and never stop. Instead, as the number of cars trying to use that intersection increase, it can take 5 or even 20 minutes to cross that intersection and you would have to repeat over and over again. With a traffic light, some people have to wait and others don't have to, but that allows people to get through faster and without stopping.
    Want another example? It's easier to make a Prius get a fuel economy of only 12 miles per gallon than to make a Hummer get 50 miles per gallon. So if we were to make them "equal" then the Prius would have to suffer, but that would in turn raise gas prices to very high limits and a horrible environment. Again, it's easier to make a car accelerate slower rather than faster. Now if you shout out and say, "but those cars meet different needs and can never be the same even if you adjust one or two qualities," then I can reply that is exactly my point. There is far too much to change as well as reasons why things are the way they are. If you claim that the doctor next door earns 10x more money than you, perhaps you are neglecting that his insurance costs 20x more than you or perhaps his daughter's health condition means his expenses are 500x more than yours. There is just too much to consider such as perhaps his job really is 10x more important than yours or at least requires a certain combination of talent and ethics that is far more rare than yours.
    Many attempts we try to make things equal only lead to more inequality, such as reverse-sexism or reverse-racism (which really are just sexism and racism). As a result, it's an unobtainable task when done without virtue being the source. When people act like whiny brats and try to force the government be like a bad parent, then no one is really satisfied. There are some things the government can do to make things right, but the real source of the problem are the conflicting personalities and vices we decide to let grow. However, if we encourage virtue to be practiced, which is easier in a smaller village than a big city, then there is hope that everyone can be happy. At the moment, the real reason I see anyone wanting a city to grow is for more tax revenue, but that's an issue of Greed and so a different topic. But how about we start preaching virtues in our schools again? That is the first step in restructuring our society for the best. When we start implementing virtues again, then society will thrive.

N. D. Moharo

Virtues of a Child

Dear "Adults" or "Wanna be adults" as I should put it,    I'm writing to you to consider becoming a child. I do not mean become a kid, but a child. If it weren't for the negative phrase of "acting childish," I would think that there really is a difference between kids and children. I think the term "kid" is somehow related to the story of the goats and sheep in the Christian Bible where the goats are the inconsiderate animals. Since the child of a goat is by definition a "kid," then I think it is logical to think that the term "kid" refers to bad children of which is referred in the common phrase "I hate kids."
    Now I won't go on about why I think that was the true origins of the word, but for my purposes in this letter, I'll be using "kids" or "brats" to refer to bad children and "child" for the good. In this situation, children have virtues that should not be tossed away upon reaching adulthood. What I find sad is that the virtues are what appear to be thrown away and the vices of kids are adopted.
    What virtues am I thinking about? Consider their fascination with the world. They value the little things. The child is amazed by things we take for granted whether it be butterflies or airplanes. They are honest too, trying to describe as they see things before they are corrupted by kids to the "benefits" of lying. A child is curious and inquisitive about how the world works. Children can entertain themselves thanks to their fascination for small things and their imagination to bring things to life. They aren't greedy but appreciate the money they earn.They see chores as interesting things to do and help without being asked. They admire greatness and aspire to become good. They live in the present while hopeful of the future.
    Now brats are not fascinated by the little things. They only compare and are never satisfied as a result. They lie for their benefit to get out of trouble or to gain something. They disdain learning and rather waste their time. They require entertainment and are easily bored, becoming greedy to buy more toys. They require being forced in someway to be productive and do housework. Their heroes are those who are talented in escapes and trickery rather than rescuing and self-sacrifice. They can hold grudges and see no point in the future.
    Is there any child who is perfect? No, and to expect that would be unreasonable and unjust as the world will teach them some vice or another. However, when you consider these virtues are truly something good, then it is easy to start adopting them ourselves. I do believe there is an element of truth in that the children who see adults practicing virtue will adopt those virtues. But if we expose our children to the vices without the foundation of virtues, then we are to blame when they end up becoming "kids."

N. D. Moharo