Morales and the Socialist

A Modern Retelling of a Narrative Poem by Lewis Carroll
Morales and the Socialist
Were walking side by side,
They wept like anything to see
The planet slowly die.
"We must try to fix this mess;
The risk we run is high."

"If capitalism, a year from now,
simply went away?
Do you suppose," Morales said,
"that we could save the day?"
"I'm certain," said the Socialist,
and so they planned their play.

"O People, come and walk with us!"
Morales plainly said,
"A pleasant chat, and you'll find that,
There's a new path ahead.
One where greedy industry
Won't leave our Mom for dead."

The wisest Person heard them,
But just sat silent by:
How would he look, after all,
To support what makes Mom die?
So there he sits, as the two
Propagate a lie.

But most young People hurried up,
All eager to take part:
Their minds all green, ready to place
the horse behind the cart.
And this was odd, because, you know,
They're supposed to be so smart.

Four other People followed them,
and yet another four;
Thick and fast they came at last,
And more, and more, and more--
All clinging to the mindset
That they came to adore.

Morales and the Socialist,
Had led them on this road,
And then they held a meeting,
Which would dictate where they'd go.
And so the People waited,
All desperate to know.

"The time has come," Morales said,
"To talk of many things:
Of rocks--and bugs-- and carbon-tax--
Of cabbages--and kings--
And why the sea is boiling hot--
And human rights for things.

"But wait a bit," the People cried,
"Before we get to that;
We're all wrapped up in other things,
that make us nice and fat!"
"No! Hurry!" said that Socialist.
"We have no time for that."

"The power to rule," Morales said,
"Is what we chiefly lack:
The means to drive corporations down,
Will make Earth's clocks roll back.
Now if you're ready, People of Earth,
We can begin the tax."

"But not on us!" the People cried,
Now a little blue.
"After such promises, that would be,
A dismal thing to do!"
"What'd you think?" Morales said,
"That we wouldn't punish you?"

"It was kind of you to hitch a ride
to our political star."
The Socialist said nothing but
"What fine comrades you are!
Now open up your pocketbooks,
And buy this new green car!"

"It seems a shame," Morales said,
"To play them such a trick.
After they trusted us to rule with care,
and make the Earth less sick!"
The Socialist said nothing but
"The wealth's still spread too thick!"

"O People," said the Socialist,
"You've had a pleasant run!
Shall you pay us for this service still?"
But money came there none--
And this was scarcely odd, because
They'd swindled everyone.

--William Sullivan

Al Gore: Environmentalist, Politician... Poet?

Step aside Shakespeare, Whitman, and Dickinson. Embrace the work of the prophet and Savior, Al Gore.

One thin September soon
A floating continent disappears
In midnight sun

Vapors rise as
Fever settles on an acid sea
Neptune's bones dissolve

Snow glides from the mountain
Ice fathers floods for a season
A hard rain comes quickly

Then dirt is parched
Kindling is placed in the forest
For the lightning's celebration

Unknown creatures
Take their leave, unmourned
Horsemen ready their stirrups

Passion seeks heroes and friends
The bell of the city
On the hill is rung

The shepherd cries
The hour of choosing has arrived
Here are your tools (1)

It's a very pleasing poem to the global warming advocate, and your average English undergrad may even find it pleasing to the ear, delighted that such language is still used. The problem is, it’s not a very good poem. It lacks depth, is utterly blatant, and unjustifiably implies parity with classical poetry. As for its substance, its purpose is the same as his film's: to scare the hell out of people about global warming.

Yet Gore is somehow collecting idiotic accolades. Mark Hetzgaard, from Vanity Fair, praises him for his contribution, saying of Mr. Gore’s poetic lines: they are visually specific and emotionally arresting even as they are scientifically accurate. (2)

Mr. Hetzgaard should impart his Vanity Fair wisdom about what is so "scientifically accurate" about this poem. It seems much more like a collection of outcomes to an outlandish doomsday prophecy, every bit as "scientific" as the Book of Revelations.

Even more frustrating, of the final stanza, Mr. Hetzgaard has this to say: "Is Gore himself that shepherd? No matter. What counts is that the hour of choosing has indeed arrived." Mr. Hetzgaard can delude himself about the intention, but Al Gore most certainly likens himself to a shepherd in the final stanza, warning his flock about the coming disaster. It is difficult to cast aside his egotism, and even harder to ignore his use of the allegorical "shepherd" imagery to establish himself as a Christ-like figure. But if we push these criticisms of his arrogance aside, we can approach the "scientific accuracy" of his predictions with one question that Mr. Gore repeatedly ignores:

If his predictions are “scientifically accurate,” then why is there a schism in the scientific community between those who believe in anthropogenic global warming and those who believe in naturalistic climate change? There is a consortium of scientists saying that changes in anthropogenic activity will have little effect on future climate patterns. Since the "science" is in contention, perhaps rather than saying Gore is "scientifically accurate," Mr. Hetzgaard would be more truthful to relate that "Mr. Gore is scientifically accurate according to the science that he and I subscribe to."

This poem has little literary value and no scientific merit whatsoever, and should be referenced only as a piece of propaganda espousing man-made global warming. It merely provides a picture of the elaborate Armageddon of the environmentalist's Faith. Given that global warming alarmism is the creed of choice for many liberal arts patrons, I will not be surprised when Gore claims a Pulitzer.

But Gore’s poem is brilliant in one specific way, insofar as his intent. He seems as if he’s channeling masterful poets, almost as if written in emulation of classical poetry. This is evident in William Petrocelli’s account in the Huffington Post. In an effort to receive self-validation, Gore jovially suggested to his editor that William Butler Yeats had written the poem to see if it was believable. (1) He even references Poseidon, god of the sea, in his Roman name of Neptune. Invoking historical gods of the Greeks is a common theme in classical poetry, and this reference's unnecessary inclusion is meant to give the poet the credibility of a well-read author. This way, if Gore’s poem is negatively critiqued, Gore and his supporters can just say that the naysayer is too unsophisticated and uneducated to understand the value of it.

So Gore will know well how to spin any criticism. After all, he is highly experienced in admonishing cynics as ignorant primitives; it has been his one and only response to those who challenge his ideas on anthropogenic global warming.

William Sullivan

1) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-petrocelli/als-poem_b_363065.html
2) http://www.vanityfair.com/online/politics/2009/12/al-gore-the-poet-laureate-of-climate-change.html

Climate Change Fanaticism: Cap and Trade on Humans?

On Oct 14 2009, NY Times reporter Andrew Revkin participated via webcam in a climate change conference titled “Covering Climate: What’s Population Got to Do With It?” which was held at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington, D.C. There he stated that one of the greatest things that an American could do to reduce their carbon footprint was to have less children. He even went on to suggest that in doing so, couples who have less or no children should theoretically be eligible for some kind of carbon credit(1). This sounds like a cap and trade system on human life. Would this mean, theoretically, that a couple wanting to have more than the government allotted number of children would have to buy these carbon credits away from people having less than the government allotted number of children?
This is fanaticism and all fanaticism is dangerous. Now I know Revkin is not a politician and has no legislative power, but he is still an environmental journalist for one of the nations biggest newspapers. Through his articles, he tries to push an agenda that is not only based on highly debatable and so far unproven science, but one which also encroaches on the most basic of human rights. The fact that he wasn’t laughed out of the conference says a lot about the “climate change” movement in general. I applaud energy efficiency as a personal choice. That is exactly what it should be, a personal choice. There should be no governmental mandate telling a person how to live their life and no government plan that rewards or punishes people for living a certain way, as long as that way of life does not infringe on the rights of others. The type of people that would conceive of or support such initiatives are inherently dangerous. These types of people do not believe that we should keep and maintain the planet so that our future generations can enjoy it. They believe that the future generations will be a hindrance to our planet. They believe that all animal life on the Earth, including humans are poisoning the planet irreversibly by just breathing. There have been initiatives in Europe to put carbon taxes on livestock due to methane production. If humans never even existed, there would still be methane producing cattle. So would the planet still be in trouble, or is it just an excuse to raise money for governments whose domestic social policies have put too heavy a financial strain on the governmental coffers?
This is just another example of how the “activists” in this movement want complete and total control of how you live your life. As asinine as this “human cap and trade” idea sounds, these people are serious and that is why everyone else should take it seriously as well.

(1) http://cnsnews.com/news/article/55667
Calvin Parker