Responding to My homie Michael

http://michaeltaormina.blogspot.com/2011/02/reading-response-7.html?showComment=1297436047611#c8125924430107804247

In Michael's post he discusses how people change over time, more specifically in Ned Vizzini's book Teen Angst Nahh... He talks about how we don't notice it, whether it physical or psychological, if we are with them in everyday life. I too read this book, although a long time ago, I chose this post, because I think I can really connect to Michael's thinking.

Everyone changes. Whether your young, old, or middle aged, you change. Not only do you change in a physical way but also psychological like I said before. What Michael noticed was that sometimes we don't even notice it. My question is why? The obvious answer is because we're with them all the time, and it changes little by little. Although this is true, I think it's more complicated. Kids michael and my age are going through a time where we are maturing. Yes, we are getting taller, getting pimples, and obtaining hair in special places. Still, after all this happening we can't see with our stupid eyes that our friends are different from 6th grade.

In the book, like Michael says, Ned goes through a lot and changes. He goes through the same thing we are. Ned changes while his friends around him changes too. Now I think that's it. Since we are changing (at about the same rate) as each other, we are maturing both mentally and physically so we don't even know the difference. Our minds are fixed just like each other and we are going through the same thing. That's why when we go back and look at old 6th pictures we say, "Wow, we look so young." We didn't think that back then. We looked at old second grade pictures and said the same thing.

So I think Michael brought up a great point here. Even though this theory is brought up my question still remains why?

BLAA BLAA BLAA CALL OF POOPY

Recently I saw a commercial on T.V for a new video game that came out called Dead Space 2. At the end it said, "Your mom will hate it." This made me think about the argument of violence influencing video games. I believe that the whole thing is complete bull crap. I used to play call of duty and I'm not a serial killer. Am I? Who is really to blame?

 Some people think that shooting people in video games, or stabbing people in video games, or any other violence will influence our kids to copy it. If that is even true that is not the developers fault. If it's anyone's fault, it's the parents. I know you have probably heard this a billion times but it really is the parents fault (even if it does happen). The developers try to make entertaining games, and someone discovered that shooting people online is a fun thing to do. No argument there. If you don't want your kids to play the game, DON'T BUY IT FOR THEM. Of course kids are gonna find ways to get around their parents rules, but still thats still up to the parents to control it.

A few years ago a game called "Manhunt"was banned from Australia. It was basically about a serial killer who would murder people in different levels of gore. I admit that I had the game and I somewhat enjoyed it. I also do admit I could understand why some parents would fear buying it for their kids. It is a very, very, very violent game. But I still believe it shouldn't have been banned. It just seems a bit ridiculous. Banning a video game from a country. I mean come on? If the game was really that bad in the first place I think that developers wouldn't have let it in stores. Games have been denied before.

I can understand how some could believe that people would want to "copy" game. But I still stand by my point. DON'T BUY IT IF YOU CAN'T HANDLE IT.

Bye Bye Dad (Revised)

In a few days my dad is moving to Connecticut to take care of my grandmother. He's going to stay there for a while and he will visit, but I just feel like it wont be the same. And this makes me think about Harry in the Harry Potter series. His parents are dead and he never got to experience being a kid with a caring family family (not the Dursley's). He doesn't know how it feels to be loved by parents so what could he be missing? The answer is nothing. He doesn't know what it's like to have a family. The theme I'm getting at is kind of like "is it better to have loved and lost or never loved at all". So I wonder how he would feel if he knew his parents, and then they died.

If you think about it, orphans who never knew their parents (and are not adopted) never experience having a real family (unless they're adopted of course). So like I said, what's to miss? But it's not about that. Since I don't have the experience I can't really speak for them realistically but I would think that they aren't hurt by the missing, they are hurt by the desire. The desire to have that perfect family and being loved. Since they don't have it and sometimes will never have it, the desire hurts the most. 

Obviously I'm going to deeply miss my dad when he goes away, but I always think, at least I have the memory. I know my dads coming back and stuff but you know what I mean. But I think sometimes the memories can hurt. Thinking about the good times will lead to you missing them even more. I know I'm going to remember watching all the old movies with him and yelling at the TV when we watch Top Chef. But on the other hand you at least have something to look back on and that's good enough for some people. I just know that I'm lucky, and I'm glad to have a dad.

Countless times throughout the book Harry is reminded of his deceased parents. Whether it's through pictures or seeing them in a special mirror in the earlier books, he can't seem to get away from it. Anyway, my colleague Peter Diller argues at my point. He believes that he doesn't desire a family, he misses his dead family. I disagree with that statement. He was too young to remember anything to do with his parents. If he had, he would have known he was a wizard before a half giant came knocking on their door to tell him.

But going back to theme, I think it is impossible to make the decision, especially because I haven't gone through it, and just in general there's always an opinion. But if I was to make a decision I probably would go with what Harry went through. He made a family. The Weasleys and his friends were his family and in real life it's possible to get adopted. I guess my only question now is how would it change your life if that person was alive, or you originally did have a family? What if Harry had a family? Would he be different? Would he have the tremendous courage he has now?