Silencing science won't prevent global warming

This story seemed outrageous to me. The article in The Post talks about how the superintendent of a High School in southeast Montana stopped the speech of a man who was a large advocate and teacher of global warming. The superintendent felt that the speaker was going to get the community that was mostly farming business angry that he was allow to talk to the students about this issue. The superintendent was being pressured by the school board not to let him speak and he did something. Unfortunately it was a move out of ignorance and fear about nothing and it called much more attention and controversy to the situation then that he was trying to avoid. The speaker wasn’t even going to talk about global warming in his speech. He said he was going to talk about the positivity of science and the benefits of the scientific field.
I think this is a ridiculous story and that theories are nothing to fear. The superintendent was just worried that because global warming is making it harder for farmers and farming is one of the major causes of global warming so he thought it would get people upset. He thought someone in the community allowed to speak out against what the community thrives on to survive would cause uproar and angry at the school in the community. But as the writer pointed out in his article, there would probably be no outrage from the public, in fact many farmers are in support of wind energy and other techniques to become more economic and be more environmentally friendly. So by doing this, the superintendent only made them look like they are reject the possibility of global warming and ignorant. People like the superintendent and the school board of Montana only look in the short term and won’t allow change to occur in their community. This is not the message that should be sent to the youth. They should not be so close minded and afraid of a speech. People like him need to learn to be more willing to change and be more open minded.

"Meet Joe Blog" response

In response to Lev Grossman's "Meet Joe Blog" and its message that the internet can be used by anyone is a far assessment in that anyway can say whatever they want on a blog and use the internet to have their voice heard. But the average person trying to get their blog read by someone across the county isn't realistic. They might have a better chance of sticking their head out the window and yelling to them. The internet is just too big for people to pick up everyday chatter from people that are not on respectable websites. There are cases however that someone could stumble upon your topic and have interest in what you’re talking about but again these days the internet is down on for its wide verity of opinions and the negativity they have. For the most part people like to complain about something rather than speak highly of what they are arguing about. For example MySpace is one of the largest forums for teenagers complaining about their lives and how they have it so hard. It's these types of blogs that make the ability to blog seem not as important with the amount of people that complain. But it's still their right to do so so they can. But this example doesn’t make blogs useless, it just decreases their value as more and more people use this just as a medium to complain and hope someone will read this and agree with them. But for the people who actually enjoying talking about how this sports team is doing on a road trip or someone on the presidential campaign blogging about how the campaign is going there is still value to blogging. People will read them to see what these people have to say to either agree with them or to argue with them. And I guess that’s democracy.

"Life an't the movies"

When Allison writes about once talking to her mother about how she should be a movie star she says her mother responded saying “Life an’t the movies.” I think when Allison tells her mom, the waitress, that she should have been a Hollywood star that in a way she was being ironic or maybe even a little sarcastic because the stereotype of waitresses are that they are all aspiring actresses, almost like she is asking her mother why she is a waitress and not even trying to be a movie star. I had to think about this part after I read it because I was trying to get a deeper understanding of what this could mean. And her mother’s response was simple but it was also very tragic because it showed how her mother gave up on any kind of dreams and how she say the happy endings in the movies as something that can’t be attained in life. By saying this she is sending a message to her young daughter life isn’t happy and doesn’t go the way you want it to, that you are what you and there is no changing it. It is also ironic that her mother said life isn’t like the movies but Allison wrote a novel about her own life that could very well be a movie. Also Allison didn’t get down on herself like some might have but she became somebody important.

This story makes me a lot more humble and thankful for my background and for the resources I have. Unlike Allison I never was discouraged growing up about what I could be or told that life is as good as it seems. I’m proud of who I am and who I am being raised to be.