Charles M. Young, This Can’t Be Happening
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 the 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. What could be better for the economy than forcing rich people to give some money to people who want to work?
Ethically, the important thing to remember is this: 70,000 Americans die every year from air pollution. They die of lung cancer and emphysema. They die of heart attacks and strokes that are more likely to occur on hot, high-smog days. They die of other forms of cancer that smog exacerbates.
Nobody disputes the 70,000 figure. It’s from the Harvard School of Public Health.
Obama could have cut that number significantly by following the science (which he promised to do in his campaign) and adopting the new regulations. If he had done that, he could have had a big White House ceremony on a day other than Friday before Labor Day and everyone who voted for him in 2008 would have felt more inclined to vote for him again. Instead he chose to insult everyone who voted for him and hand the Republicans a stick to beat him. The $19-to-$90 billion that the energy companies would have had to spend to kill fewer people with their product is $19-to-$90 billion that the Koch brothers and other sociopathic coal barons will have to spend on destroying democracy.
Maybe it’s good for the employment rate if 70,000 workers die and 70,000 people who don’t have cancer yet take their jobs. Doesn’t seem like a big applause line on the campaign trail, though.
“I will continue to stand by the hardworking men and women at the EPA as they strive every day to hold polluters accountable and protect our families from harmful pollution,” said Obama.
Jesus Christ.
I don’t care if Obama is a traitor, or a coward, or a Manchurian candidate from the fascist right, or a lizard from Mars. I refuse to psychoanalyze him.
What matters is the 70,000 Americans who die every year from air pollution. I myself have two friends who died of heart attacks on hot, smoggy days. I know four people who have cancer, and everyone I know seems to know four more people with cancer. Worldwide, 40% of all deaths are caused by pollution, according to the World Health Organization. Obama could have done something about this. If he had, it would have been to his political benefit. He chose not to. Intentionally, knowingly and recklessly, he chose to side with those who value money more than life.
Therefore, it is immoral to vote for Obama. The only moral path right now is nonviolent revolution. Until then, watch for an announcement that he’s going to build the tar sands pipeline on Wednesday afternoon before Thanksgiving. Or maybe Christmas eve. [Or maybe he just did it!]
¶
ADVERT PRO NOBIS
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
IF YOU THINK THE LAMESTREAM MEDIA ARE A DISGRACE AND A HUGE OBSTACLE
to real change in America why haven’t you sent at least a few dollars to The Greanville Post (or a similar anti-corporate citizen’s media?). Think about it. Without educating and organizing our ranks our cause is DOA. That’s why our new citizens’ media need your support. Send your badly needed check to “TGP, P.O. Box 1028, Brewster, NY 10509-1028.” Make checks out to ”P. Greanville/ TGP”. (A contribution of any amount can also be made via Paypal and MC or VISA.)
THANK YOU.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Kerry Lauerman
Joan Walsh
Salon.com
Comments
-R-
By their fruits ye shall know them.
Do so!
Do everything you can to see that he is not elected.
The result will be one of the Republican candidates will win and become president.
Then we will all see if America and the world is the better for it. We'll see if there is less killing; less bombing; less invasions of rights; more concern for the less advantaged; better choices for the federal judiciary.
Yup. We'll see.
So do your best. Live up to your "moral obligations."
in any case, whether or not you can still vote in the US, your home state's going to give Obama its electoral votes, so whine on
and you know the last state I was registered to vote in, how?
"As Americans look upon the treacherous legislation passed under NDAA 2012, it it should first be remembered that the very bill President Obama threatened to veto was controversial due to the language the Obama White House itself pressured Congress to add to the bill, according to Sen. Carl Levin." Go read what this allows.
There is no right choice for president because the presidency is a 19th century anachronism, an illusion of authority. Chief executives can only do what their subordinates prepare them to do. The faceless, nameless experts really control the world and, to a person, they are amoral. Not immoral. They decide things in the absence of a socially conscious critical appraisal of the effects of their decisions.
The problem is that we still believe that the president is the all-powerful figure that we like to think he is....because if we acknowledge the alternative, it becomes obvious that we are living in precisely the kind of anarchy that Ayn Rand wanted....with the necessary outcome of chaos....because chaos is always the consequence of anarchy.
I will vote for Obama for the simple reason that I am terrified of what might happen if the Republicans were to hold both houses of congress and the presidency. I have no illusions about Obama's ability to rule, but I am even less illusioned about what America would look like with ANY of the Republicans at the helm.
Your 70,000 people who die each year from air pollution don't die from air pollution. That's a gross over-simplification. Air pollution is a contributing cause but, as someone who will probably die from respiratory disease, I am very conscious of the fact that, while I may die 10 or 15 years from now from respiratory disease, I will die much quicker if we run out of energy in five or ten years.
We live in a carnivorous, cannibalistic society that feeds off itself. The idea that any one individual can reverse this situation is the kind of wishful thinking that believes that any one person can save us from ourselves.
It's not going to happen.
The really odd thing about this piece is the idea that somehow the republicans will do anything to make the situation better rather than worse.
There is no right choice for president because the presidency is a 19th century anachronism, an illusion of authority. Chief executives can only do what their subordinates prepare them to do. The faceless, nameless experts really control the world and, to a person, they are amoral. Not immoral. They decide things in the absence of a socially conscious critical appraisal of the effects of their decisions.
The problem is that we still believe that the president is the all-powerful figure that we like to think he is....because if we acknowledge the alternative, it becomes obvious that we are living in precisely the kind of anarchy that Ayn Rand wanted....with the necessary outcome of chaos....because chaos is always the consequence of anarchy.
I will vote for Obama for the simple reason that I am terrified of what might happen if the Republicans were to hold both houses of congress and the presidency. I have no illusions about Obama's ability to rule, but I am even less illusioned about what America would look like with ANY of the Republicans at the helm.
Your 70,000 people who die each year from air pollution don't die from air pollution. That's a gross over-simplification. Air pollution is a contributing cause but, as someone who will probably die from respiratory disease, I am very conscious of the fact that, while I may die 10 or 15 years from now from respiratory disease, I will die much quicker if we run out of energy in five or ten years.
We live in a carnivorous, cannibalistic society that feeds off itself. The idea that any one individual can reverse this situation is the kind of wishful thinking that believes that any one person can save us from ourselves.
It's not going to happen.
The really odd thing about this piece is the idea that somehow the republicans will do anything to make the situation better rather than worse.
Jonathon actually hit the nail on the head. Those who vote for Obama actually do it for the mythology of Obama, not the reality.
Well, perhaps technically you are correct. But a stand against Obama will be a stand for the Republican candidate. The “third party” thing is pure fantasy for the next election.
As I said earlier,
I think if YOU think it is immoral to vote for Obama...you should not vote for him. In fact, if YOU think it is immoral to vote for Obama...you should do everything in your power to influence others not to vote for him.
Do so!
Do everything you can to see that he is not elected.
The result will be one of the Republican candidates will win and become president.
But recognize that you and all of us will have to live with the consequences of that mindset prevailing—which is, the Republican candidate will win.