You are hereBlogs / dlindorff's blog / Yes, It Is Immoral to Vote for Obama
Yes, It Is Immoral to Vote for Obama
By Charles M. Young
Mike Whitney wrote a great column recently titled “Is It Immoral to Vote for Obama?” Based on Obama’s predilection to kill large numbers of people around the Middle East in pursuit of foreign policy objectives, Whitney argued, it would indeed be immoral to vote for him. He isn’t the lesser of two evils. He is worse than Bush, which makes him evil, period.
I would argue that it is immoral to vote for Obama because he is guilty of the negligent homicide of 70,000 American citizens every year.
Consider what negligent homicide is. Legally it means that somebody died, and that the defendant should reasonably have been aware of the risk and instead of doing something to stop it, he “intentionally, knowingly or recklessly” acted in such a way that the death occurred.
Ethically, it means that you could have prevented a death at little or no risk to yourself, and you chose not to. It means that if you see a child crawl into a refrigerator and shut the door, and you don’t let him out, you bear responsibility for his death.
Now consider what Obama did on September 2. It was Friday before Labor Day, an infamous date almost every year because politicians use it to announce things that make them look bad. Most voters are traveling for the long weekend and aren’t paying attention. So just the choice of date proves he was aware that his decision was rotten, just as flight indicates consciousness of guilt.
He announced that day that he would not implement new regulations recommended by his own Environmental Protection Agency that would have cut the amount of smog we all inhale with every breath.
He could have done so on his own authority. The Republicans in Congress did not have to vote on it. Instead of standing with the throngs of environmentalists who voted for him, he said the regulations would be a burden for business and chose to stand with American Petroleum Institute, which gloated that “the President’s decision was good news for the economy and Americans looking for work.”
How? If the President had gone with the new regulations, it would have cost $19-to-$90 billion, depending on how they were enforced. It would have mandated that energy companies, which are swimming in money, build new cleaner power plants and install scrubbers in the power plants already built. The new regulations would have forced the energy companies to create jobs, not cut them...
For the rest of this article by CHARLES M. YOUNG in ThisCantBeHappening!, the new award-winning independent alternative online newspaper, please go to: www.thiscantbehappening.net/node/861
- dlindorff's blog
- Login to post comments
-
- Email this page
- Printer-friendly version
This might be a poor joke, but for the sake of trying to add a little humor in this darkness of the Obama administration era, I'll give this a shot anyway.
The following picture or image is the one in the full copy of the above article by Charles M. Young and while it's not real, I nevertheless see what might strike some of us as a resemblance of a ghostly face in this toxic smoke. Just a little left of center and just beneath the top of the image is what we could say might look like an apparition of a ghostly human face; seeing what'ld be the nose (a fairly wide one, too), where the right eye would be, but only seeing it as a darkened portion of this ghostly face (not seeing the eyeball at all), the forehead, right cheek, mouth area and chin, while the left side of the face is darkened.
Maybe the toxic smoke is showing a ghostly representation, say, of Obama's face, to try to tell us that he's a very toxic president for the environment and, therefore, also for us. No?
FAIR USE notice :
The direct link for the image was used to include the picture here, and this is done based on the FAIR USE laws; rather than for commercial or for-profit reasons, which don't apply here anyway.