Patrick
Hurley is president of the Regular Republican Club,
30th Ad (Woodside-Maspeth) Queens, New York City,
and a member of the Queens County Executive of the
Republican Party. He is also an officer of the County
Cork Association of New York, The Blanket tell
us. Patrick Hurley also appears to be a delusional
reactionary, but, perhaps the editors of The Blanket
find such characteristics deeply charming. To each
his or her own, I suppose.
While
Patrick Hurley finds John Kerry's past deeply disturbing
and considers George W. Bush's draft-dodging in
the US National Guard to be an inspiring display
of patriotism, I would like to suggest that both
present US Presidential candidates are among the
least appealing options given to the American people
in very long time and that it is far past time for
the voters in the US to say enough!
Perhaps
the only thing in his life that he deserves to take
pride in was John Kerry denunciation of the imperialist
crimes of the United States during the Vietnam war.
That war was a completely needless exercise in the
spilling of innocent blood, and in speaking of "innocent
blood" I refer, of course, to the blood of
the Vietnamese people. There was no innocent blood
spilled by Americans on the land of Vietnam. Each
and every American who died or was wounded there
did so as an agent of an imperialist regime bent
on conquest and oppression. If they harboured feelings
of guilt and doubt while there as a part of the
US military, they clearly did so insufficiently.
Sufficient guilt and doubt would have kept them
from being there.
So,
John Kerry's medals are not honours to be weighed
in consideration of how one should cast their ballot
in the upcoming American election, so far as I am
able to see, but having said that, I have no doubt
that they were actually earned in the manner Kerry
has suggested. All objective sources seem clear
on that point.
Likewise,
I don't see George W. Bush's avoidance of serving
in Vietnam as an issue upon which to make a decision
as to how a ballot should be cast this November.
Though the war thankfully ended before I reached
the age of majority, as a lad in secondary school,
I had resolved to spend time in prison rather than
serve in Vietnam. Certainly time in the National
Guard is not a great deal better or worse than the
choice I made for myself--either kept one's hands
clean of Vietnamese blood.
In
stacking the two candidates by criteria that does
matter, however, I find still little to distinguish
one from the other. Both are extremely rich men,
born in privilege, hopelessly out of touch with
the needs and interests of working people. Both
are supporters of US imperialism around the globe,
prepared to violate the sovereignty of other nations
to provide benefit to the multi-national corporations
who control the governmental policy of America,
who seek to dominate the world in their quest for
more and more ill-gotten profits. Both will stand
back and watch the environment raped and destroyed
so that the Fortune 500 can enjoy an improved bottom
line in the forthcoming quarterly report. Both will
allow the children of America to be born in poverty,
denied a quality education, be overwhelmed by a
crushing national debt, lack access to basic medical
care, slave away in poorly paid employment, and
face declining years without the security of pensions
or state assistance.
Patrick
Hurley may believe their is much to become excited
about in favour or in opposition to either Kerry
or Bush, but I think both inspire the desire to
turn away in disgust and dread.
I
intend to do something about that. I will be voting
for Leonard Peltier, the American Indian Movement
activists imprisoned for the past three decades
after being framed by the FBI in an attempt to undermine
the struggle of Native Americans for justice. He'll
be on the ballot in my home state of California
on the Peace and Freedom Party slate, with Vice
Presidential candidate Janice Jordan, who is a support
of the Irish Republican Socialist Party. The Peace
and Freedom Party doesn't have ballot status in
all 50 states, but there are other alternative candidates
for US President to be chosen from. Worker's World
Party is running a candidate, as is the Socialist
Workers Party, who can be voted for as write-ins,
if their names don't appear on the ballot. Though
I personally wouldn't vote for a candidate who was
not a socialist, other Americans who refuse to be
asked to choose between the evil of two lessors
could also vote for Ralph Nader or the Green Party
candidate, neither of whom has made their actions
during the Vietnam War an issue for the electorate
to consider, but both of whom are easily superior
in their positions on issues impacting working people
in the US to either Bush or Kerry.
If
Patrick Hurley is correct, however, that it is important
to consider the events during the Vietnam War in
making a decision in the US Presidential election
this year, then I have one additional suggestion
to American voters; write in the name of Ho Chi
Minh. He won't be elected and even if he was, he
couldn't serve, since he's long been dead. Still,
his conduct during the Vietnam War was, without
question, something deserving praise, and he voting
for him won't do a fraction of the harm to American
working people that electing either John Kerry or
George W. Bush will.
