I felt moved to respond after reading Margeaux Corby’s article “Strong Gore, weak argument” in the Opinions section last week.

I found it commendable that Corby was willing to take a stand against a popular opinion, and careful to leave politics out of the article, for the most part.

But, I was disturbed by much of the logic of her argument.

Corby opens her article by discussing some of the metaphors Gore used during the Congressional hearings.

However, rather than considering the possible interpretations derived from these metaphors, Corby chose to overlook meaning to get in a few satirical jabs.

While it is true that comparing the world’s predicament with global warming to a baby with a fever may not be the most awe-inspiring or lyrical of metaphors, sometimes the simplest words can evoke the strongest meanings.

While it is silly to think about the members of the House and Senate as the sword-wielding soldiers from the film “300,” it is not so far off when considering that both the Spartans and the members of the House and Senate are a small group of people with the opportunity to stand against a seemingly-impossible obstacle.

Corby next expresses a strong dislike of Gore’s use of the phrases “uncommon moral courage” and “redeem[ing] the promise of American democracy” both used in reference to the idea of American citizens taking action against global

warming.

While I fully agree with Corby that the language is overly grandiose, and I don’t understand the whole “redeeming the promise of American democracy” thing myself, I do think Corby was a bit quick to dismiss the idea of “uncommon moral courage.”

There are many different kinds of courage. Corby asserts that “uncommon moral courage is exhibited by those who risk everything” and while I do agree, I also think that this definition is too limited.

I would assert that uncommon moral courage is exhibited by people who are willing to take [often] life-endangering risks and to make [often] life-altering sacrifices because they realize that something larger is at stake.

Is banning light bulbs comparable to sheltering Jews during the Holocaust? It might be disrespectful, but I have to say yes, it is or could be similar.

In each of the examples of uncommon moral courage that Corby listed, the threat was immediate. If Jews were found, they were immediately killed as were the people who aided them.

The same was also true of slaves on the Underground Railroad. The countless number of heroes who helped these people could see firsthand the lives they were saving. In the case of global warming, this is an impossibility.

We won’t be here a hundred years from now to see what will become of the people who suffer the consequences for our current actions.

If even one person in every city in America decided to not use incandescent light bulbs, that would add up to a heck of a lot of people: a small act would make a big change.

Corby concludes by pointing out Gore’s hypocrisy in terms of the amount of electricity he consumes, which is an important thing to note.

However, continuing with the metaphor of the baby, let’s not “throw the baby out with bathwater” by dismissing a valuable message just because we might dislike the messenger or the words he chose to use.

Student: Grace Dow '07 - 04/19/07