Apr 22 2008

the difference

Here’s a short little ditty for your consideration…

My youngest sister once asked my mom what the difference between a republican and a democrat was.

she answered with this story…

My side of the family were mostly democrats so that’s what I first registered as.  Your father is republican and your grandfather was involved in local politics.  He told me that no member of his family could be a democrat and that he wouldn’t marry me unless I was a registered republican.  So I changed my registration.

Years later I decided to switch back….

When he found my new voter registration card he ripped it up in front of me, walked me out to the car, drove me downtown and watched while I changed my registration back to republican.

One of the first things I did after the divorce was re-register as a democrat.

and that’s the difference.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Soon I’m going to walk down to my polling place and vote in my first ever presidential primary….as of right now I’m still undecided…

I’m between Obama, Kucinich or Wiggum…

sigh…

26 comments

Skip to comment form

  2. And that really seems to be the difference, doesn’t it?!

    Congrats on your first primary vote experience  đŸ˜‰  And by

    the time Nov. voting comes around you’ll be up here…

  3. proud of you………………….

  4. My entire adult life, I have lived in states where the primary was so late, the presidential nominee had already been chosen.  It just didn’t seem to matter much.

    The only other important primary race here in Lancaster is for the Dem. who will run for state treasurer.  Didn’t find much online, so I voted for the “rising star”–Jennifer Mann of Allentown.  The other three (all men) seemed to me to have big down-sides.

  5. you are a citizen of this country and can’t be bothered to

    take the time to register and vote then you shouldn’t be

    allowed to EVER comment about how this country is run or

    what you have to pay in taxes.  It really is just that

    simple…  And when I say vote – that includes every local,

    state, primary and general election!  No exceptions.

    Can you imagine if all the people who bitch and moan about

    how things are going.. if they had just voted look at how

    different things would be right now!

    (stepping off the soap box now)  ;D

  6. 1. Chronological list of interventions, with the purpose of effecting “regime change,” attempted or materially supported by the United States-whether primarily by means of overt force (OF), covert operation (CO), or subverted election (SE):

    a) OF and SE imply, necessarily, prior and continuing CO.

    b) OF = directly applied state terrorism by the United States repressive apparatus i.e. the Departments of War/Defense, Energy, Treasury, and State. N.B. the formation of the National Security Council (1947) and the Office of Homeland Security (2002).

    c) CO = reconnaissance, classical coups d’etat, legal harassment, disinformation (through media, legal, NGO, student, labor, and other front groups), bribery, sabotage, assassination, proxy warfare, running ratlines for fascist Ă©migrĂ© groups, and assorted other clandestine activities.

    d) SE = a particular species of CO, comparatively non-violent, high plausible deniability, usually involves dumping tons of cash and campaign technologies into the hands of rightist groups during elections, sowing discord in leftist parties, buying up media space in order to destabilize electorates, tampering directly with ballot results, and hiring jackboots to actively threaten and brutalize voters in the last resort. NB many subverted elections are preceded by lengthy terror campaigns (e.g. Nicaragua, El Salvador, Yugoslavia, etc).

    It should go without saying that the following entries are simplified; only the major “payoff” year is listed, where applicable. Most attempted overthrows were preceded by lengthy preparations-vast right wing conspiracies, indeed. NB that this list remains under construction; new data will be added in the next installment.

    [Date – place (head of targeted state/candidate in subverted election; political affiliation): outcome (means)]

    “Neutralist” refers to a given regime’s desire to avoid taking sides with either power bloc in the cold war. It should be readily apparent that such is an unforgivable sin against the foreign policy establishment in the United States.

    “Nationalist” refers to a given regime’s desire to nationalize foreign-owned means of production within its national boundaries. It should be readily apparent that such is an unforgivable sin against the foreign policy establishment in the United States.

    1893 – Hawaii (Liliuokalani; monarchist): success (OF)

    1912 – China (Piyu; monarchist): success (OF)

    1918 – Panama (Arias; center-right): success (SE)

    1919 – Hungary (Kun; communist): success (CO)

    1920 – USSR (Lenin; communist): failure (OF)

    1924 – Honduras (Carias; nationalist): success (SE)

    1934 – United States (Roosevelt; liberal): failure (CO)

    1945 – Japan (Higashikuni; rightist): success (OF)

    1946 – Thailand (Pridi; conservative): success (CO)

    1946 – Argentina (Peron; military/centrist): failure (SE)

    1947 – France (communist): success (SE)

    1947 – Philippines (center-left): success (SE)

    1947 – Romania (Gheorghiu-Dej; stalinist): failure (CO)

    1948 – Italy (communist): success (SE)

    1948 – Colombia (Gaitan; populist/leftist): success (SE)

    1948 – Peru (Bustamante; left/centrist): success (CO)

    1949 – Syria (Kuwatli; neutralist/Pan-Arabist): success (CO)

    1949 – China (Mao; communist): failure (CO)

    1950 – Albania (Hoxha; communist): failure (CO)

    1951 – Bolivia (Paz; center/neutralist): success (CO)

    1951 – DPRK (Kim; stalinist): failure (OF)

    1951 – Poland (Cyrankiewicz; stalinist): failure (CO)

    1951 – Thailand (Phibun; conservative): success (CO)

    1952 – Egypt (Farouk; monarchist): success (CO)

    1952 – Cuba (Prio; reform/populist): success (CO)

    1952 – Lebanon (left/populist): success: (SE)

    1953 – British Guyana (left/populist): success (CO)

    1953 – Iran (Mossadegh; liberal nationalist): success (CO)

    1953 – Costa Rica (Figueres; reform liberal): failure (CO)

    1953 – Philippines (center-left): success (SE)

    1954 – Guatemala (Arbenz; liberal nationalist): success (OF)

    1955 – Costa Rica (Figueres; reform liberal): failure (CO)

    1955 – India (Nehru; neutralist/socialist): failure (CO)

    1955 – Argentina (Peron; military/centrist): success (CO)

    1955 – China (Zhou; communist): failure (CO)

    1955 – Vietnam (Ho; communist): success (SE)

    1956 – Hungary (Hegedus; communist): success (CO)

    1957 – Egypt (Nasser; military/nationalist): failure (CO)

    1957 – Haiti (Sylvain; left/populist): success (CO)

    1957 – Syria (Kuwatli; neutralist/Pan-Arabist): failure (CO)

    1958 – Japan (left-center): success (SE)

    1958 – Chile (leftists): success (SE)

    1958 – Iraq (Feisal; monarchist): success (CO)

    1958 – Laos (Phouma; nationalist): success (CO)

    1958 – Sudan (Sovereignty Council; nationalist): success (CO)

    1958 – Lebanon (leftist): success (SE)

    1958 – Syria (Kuwatli; neutralist/Pan-Arabist): failure (CO)

    1958 – Indonesia (Sukarno; militarist/neutralist): failure (SE)

    1959 – Laos (Phouma; nationalist): success (CO)

    1959 – Nepal (left-centrist): success (SE)

    1959 – Cambodia (Sihanouk; moderate/neutralist): failure (CO)

    1960 – Ecuador (Ponce; left/populist): success (CO)

    1960 – Laos (Phouma; nationalist): success (CO)

    1960 – Iraq (Qassem; rightist /militarist): failure (CO)

    1960 – S. Korea (Syngman; rightist): success (CO)

    1960 – Turkey (Menderes; liberal): success (CO)

    1961 – Haiti (Duvalier; rightist/militarist): success (CO)

    1961 – Cuba (Castro; communist): failure (CO)

    1961 – Congo (Lumumba; leftist/pan-Africanist): success (CO)

    1961 – Dominican Republic (Trujillo; rightwing/military): success (CO)

    1962 – Brazil (Goulart; liberal/neutralist): failure (SE)

    1962 – Dominican Republic (left/populist): success (SE)

    1962 – Indonesia (Sukarno; militarist/neutralist): failure (CO)

    1963 – Dominican Republic (Bosch; social democrat): success (CO)

    1963 – Honduras (Montes; left/populist): success (CO)

    1963 – Iraq (Qassem; militarist/rightist): success (CO)

    1963 – S. Vietnam (Diem; rightist): success (CO)

    1963 – Cambodia (Sihanouk; moderate/neutralist): failure (CO)

    1963 – Guatemala (Ygidoras; rightist/reform): success (CO)

    1963 – Ecuador (Velasco; reform militarist): success (CO)

    1963 – United States (Kennedy; liberal): success (CO)

    1964 – Guyana (Jagan; populist/reformist): success (CO)

    1964 – Bolivia (Paz; centrist/neutralist): success (CO)

    1964 – Brazil (Goulart; liberal/neutralist): success (CO)

    1964 – Chile (Allende; social democrat/marxist): success (SE)

    1965 – Indonesia (Sukarno; militarist/neutralist): success (CO)

    1966 – Ghana (Nkrumah; leftist/pan-Africanist): success (CO)

    1966 – Bolivia (leftist): success (SE)

    1966 – France (de Gaulle; centrist): failure (CO)

    1967 – Greece (Papandreou; social democrat): success (CO)

    1968 – Iraq (Arif; rightist): success (CO)

    1969 – Panama (Torrijos; military/reform populist): failure (CO)

    1969 – Libya (Idris; monarchist): success (CO)

    1970 – Bolivia (Ovando; reform nationalist): success (CO)

    1970 – Cambodia (Sihanouk; moderate/neutralist): success (CO)

    1970 – Chile (Allende; social democrat/Marxist): failure (SE)

    1971 – Bolivia (Torres; nationalist/neutralist): success (CO)

    1971 – Costa Rica (Figueres; reform liberal): failure (CO)

    1971 – Liberia (Tubman; rightist): success (CO)

    1971 – Turkey (Demirel; center-right): success (CO)

    1971 – Uruguay (Frente Amplio; leftist): success (SE)

    1972 – El Salvador (leftist): success (SE)

    1972 – Australia (Whitlam; liberal/labor): failure (SE)

    1973 – Chile (Allende; social democrat/Marxist): success (CO)

    1974 – United States (Nixon; centrist): success (CO)

    1975 – Australia (Whitlam; liberal/labor): success (CO)

    1975 – Congo (Mobutu; military/rightist): failure (CO)

    1975 – Bangladesh (Mujib; nationalist): success (CO)

    1976 – Jamaica (Manley; social democrat): failure (SE)

    1976 – Portugal (JNS; military/leftist): success (SE)

    1976 – Nigeria (Mohammed; military/nationalist): success (CO)

    1976 – Thailand (rightist): success (CO)

    1976 – Uruguay (Bordaberry; center-right): success (CO)

    1977 – Pakistan (Bhutto: center/nationalist): success (CO)

    1978 – Dominican Republic (Balaguer; center): success (SE)

    1979 – S. Korea (Park; rightist): success (CO)

    1979 – Nicaragua (Sandinistas; leftist): failure (CO)

    1980 – Bolivia (Siles; centrist/reform): success (CO)

    1980 – Iran (Khomeini; Islamic nationalist): failure (CO)

    1980 – Italy (leftist): success (SE)

    1980 – Liberia (Tolbert; rightist): success (CO)

    1980 – Jamaica (Manley; social democrat): success (SE)

    1980 – Dominica (Seraphin; leftist): success (SE)

    1980 – Turkey (Demirel; center-right): success (CO)

    1981 – Seychelles (RenĂ©; socialist): failure (CO)

    1981 – Spain (Suarez; rightist/neutralist): failure (CO)

    1981 – Panama (Torrijos; military/reform populist); success (CO)

    1981 – Zambia (Kaunda; reform nationalist): failure (CO)

    1982 – Mauritius (center-left): failure (SE)

    1982 – Spain (Suarez; rightist/neutralist): success (SE)

    1982 – Iran (Khomeini; Islamic nationalist): failure (CO)

    1982 – Chad (Oueddei; Islamic nationalist): success (CO)

    1983 – Mozambique (Machel; socialist): failure (CO)

    1983 – Grenada (Bishop; socialist): success (OF)

    1984 – Panama (reform/centrist): success (SE)

    1984 – Nicaragua (Sandinistas; leftist): failure (SE)

    1984 – Surinam (Bouterse; left/reformist/neutralist): success (CO)

    1984 – India (Gandhi; nationalist): success (CO)

    1986 – Libya (Qaddafi; Islamic nationalist): failure (OF)

    1987 – Fiji (Bavrada; liberal): success (CO)

    1989 – Panama (Noriega; military/reform populist): success (OF)

    1990 – Haiti (Aristide; liberal reform): failure (SE)

    1990 – Nicaragua (Ortega; Christian socialist): success (SE)

    1991 – Albania (Alia; communist): success (SE)

    1991 – Haiti (Aristide; liberal reform): success (CO)

    1991 – Iraq (Hussein; military/rightist): failure (OF)

    1991 – Bulgaria (BSP; communist): success (SE)

    1992 – Afghanistan (Najibullah; communist): success (CO)

    1993 – Somalia (Aidid; right/militarist): failure (OF)

    1993 – Cambodia (Han Sen/CPP; leftist): failure (SE)

    1993 – Burundi (Ndadaye; conservative): success (CO)

    1993 – Azerbaijan (Elchibey; reformist): success (CO)

    1994 – El Salvador (leftist): success (SE)

    1994 – Rwanda (Habyarimana; conservative): success (CO)

    1994 – Ukraine (Kravchuk; center-left): success (SE)

    1995 – Iraq (Hussein; military/rightist): failure (CO)

    1996 – Bosnia (Karadzic; centrist): success (CO)

    1996 – Russia (Zyuganov; communist): success (SE)

    1996 – Congo (Mobutu; military/rightist): success (CO)

    1996 – Mongolia (center-left): success (SE)

    1998 – Congo (Kabila; rightist/military): success (CO)

    1998 – United States (Clinton; conservative): failure (CO)

    1998 – Indonesia (Suharto; military/rightist): success (CO)

    1999 – Yugoslavia (Milosevic; left/nationalist): success (SE)

    2000 – United States (Gore; conservative): success (SE)

    2000 – Ecuador (NSC; leftist): success: (CO)

    2001 – Afghanistan (Omar; rightist/Islamist): success (OF)

    2001 – Belarus (Lukashenko; leftist): failure (SE)

    2001 – Nicaragua (Ortega; Christian socialist): success (SE)

    2001 – Nepal (Birendra; nationalist/monarchist): success (CO)

    2002 – Venezuela (Chavez; reform-populist): failure (CO)

    2002 – Bolivia (Morales; leftist/MAS): success (SE)

    2002 – Brazil (Lula; center-left): failure (SE)

    We should keep in mind that the goals of the imperialist in each of these instances are multiple: acquisition of access to local “markets” of all varieties; imposition of neoliberal policy; destruction of any potential alternative to the techno-fascist ruling order; provision of incentive for a sprawling parasitical and parastatal medical-intelligence-military-industrial complex (MIMIC); production of official “villains” for propaganda purposes; intimidation of non-combatants (as in the year 1945), and continuing political hegemony of the transnational elite based in DC.

    2. Chronological list of US air warfare campaigns:

    Japan (1943-45): conventional; incendiary; nuclear

    China (1945-49): conventional; biological

    Korea (1950-53): conventional; biological; chemical; incendiary

    China (1951-52): conventional; biological; chemical

    Guatemala (1954): conventional

    Indonesia (1958): conventional

    Cuba (1959-61): conventional; (biochemical attacks in other years)

    Guatemala (1960): conventional

    Vietnam (1961-73): conventional; chemical; biological; cluster

    Congo (1964): conventional

    Peru (1965): conventional

    Laos (1964-73): conventional; chemical; biological; cluster

    Guatemala (1967-69): conventional

    Cambodia (1969-70): conventional; chemical; biological

    Cambodia (1975): conventional

    El Salvador (1980-89): conventional

    Nicaragua (1980-89): conventional

    Grenada (1983): conventional

    Lebanon (1983-4): conventional

    Syria (1984): conventional

    Libya (1986): conventional

    Iran (1987): conventional

    Panama (1989): conventional; chemical; biological

    Iraq (1991-2002): conventional; chemical; biological; cluster; DU

    Kuwait (1991): conventional; chemical; biological; cluster; DU

    Somalia (1993): conventional

    Bosnia (1993-95): conventional; cluster; DU

    Sudan (1998): conventional; biological

    Afghanistan (1998): conventional

    Yugoslavia (1999): conventional; chemical; biological; cluster; DU

    Afghanistan (2001-02): conventional; chemical; biological; cluster; DU

    3. Chronological list of US client states:

    1847 – Liberia: to present

    1848 – Mexico: to 1911

    1893 – Hawaii: to 1959

    1899 – Cuba: to 1959

    1903 – Dominican Republic: to present

    1903 – Honduras: to present

    1912 – China: to 1949

    1922 – Italy: to 1941

    1928 – Portugal: to 1974

    1933 – Germany: to 1941

    1939 – Spain: to present

    1943 – Italy: to present

    1944 – Saudi Arabia: to present

    1945 – France: to 1965

    1945 – Japan: to present

    1945 – West Germany: to 1960

    1945 – South Korea: to present

    1945 – Burma: to 1962

    1946 – Thailand: to present

    1947 – Greece: to 1964

    1947 – Turkey: to present

    1948 – Israel: to present

    1949 – Taiwan: to present

    1950 – Colombia: to present

    1952 – Australia: to present

    1952 – Lebanon: to present

    1952 – New Zealand: to 1985

    1953 – Iran: to 1979

    1954 – Guatemala: to present

    1954 – Pakistan: to present

    1959 – Paraguay: to present

    1955 – South Vietnam: to 1975

    1957 – Haiti: to present

    1957 – Jordan: to present

    1960 – Congo/Zaire: to present

    1963 – Iraq: to 1990

    1964 – Bolivia: to present

    1964 – Brazil: to present

    1965 – Greece: to present

    1965 – Peru: to present

    1966 – Central African Republic: to present

    1969 – Oman: to present

    1970 – Egypt: to present

    1970 – Cambodia: to 1979

    1970 – Uruguay: to present

    1975 – Morocco: to present

    1976 – Portugal: to present

    1978 – Kenya: to present

    1978 – S. Africa: to 1990

    1979 – Yemen: to present

    1979 – Somalia: to 1991

    1982 – Chad: to present

    1982 – Mexico: to present

    1984 – Brunei: to present

    1988 – Burma: to present

    1992 – Angola: to 2002

    1993 – Azerbaijan: to present

    1993 – Eritrea: to present

    1993 – Nigeria: to present

    1994 – Ukraine: to present

    1995 – Ethiopia: to present

    2000 – Kyrgyzstan: to present

    2001 – Afghanistan: to present

    15. Foreign policy doctrines more or less practiced by the United States:

    Monroe Doctrine – western hemisphere = US property; non-whites = untermenschen

    McKinley Doctrine – Open Door Policy i.e., China, Pacific = potentially, possibly, most likely US property; non-whites = untermenschen

    Roosevelt Corollary – western hemisphere = US property, and we mean it this time! non-whites = untermenschen

    Taft Doctrine – Dollar Diplomacy i.e., western hemisphere = US property, and we mean economically, politically, and all other ways; the Middle East = potentially, possibly, most likely, US property

    Wilson Doctrine – 14 Points internationalism (i.e., great powers should respect each other; to hell with the rest); western hemisphere = US property, and we really mean it this time! non-whites = untermenschen

    Roosevelt Doctrine – “Good Neighbor Policy!” i.e., western hemisphere = US property, and we really really really fucking mean it.

    Truman Doctrine – aid to fascists in Greece, Turkey, the Philippines, Korea, Vietnam, western Europe, Eastern Europe, North Africa, etc. i.e., what Kennan called “Containment.”

    Eisenhower Doctrine – the Middle East = US property; non-whites = untermenschen; massive retaliation

    Nixon Doctrine – enter neocolonialism: overthrowing governments, installing clients, using local elites to manage foreign populations for US advantage i.e., Asia, Africa, western hemisphere = US property, but we’re gonna try to be sneaky about it. Overall, see above.

    Carter Doctrine – the Middle East = US property, and we aren’t kidding; trilateralism

    Reagan Doctrine – “Rollback”; mutually assured destruction; low intensity warfare; support for rightwing Islamist groups, narcotics smuggling, etc.

    Bush I Doctrine – New World Order; “What we say, goes.”

    Clinton Doctrine – New World Order; “multilaterally if we can, unilaterally when we must.”

    Bush II Doctrine – New World Order; “unilaterally when we can, multilaterally if we must.”

    Yeah, there’s a difference, in a jokey, sitcom, fantasy-world kind of way there’s a difference. We can go in and pull a lever that’s not connected to anything and come out feeling as pious as if we had been to church.

    In the real world? There’s probably more than a few people in Nagasaki, Hiroshima, Vietnam, the Middle East, and Latin America who would find our propensity for self-deception curious, to say the least.

     

Comments have been disabled.