Word of the Day: VACCINATION

Much earlier this year, I read an article that surprised me.  The article stated that, here in New Jersey, more children are unvaccinated now than ten years ago.  COVID-19 started five years ago, so that added to my surprise: a decline that started pre-COVID.  The article gave a county-by-county breakdown, with increases ranging from an 85% increase to a whopping 290% increase in unvaccinated children.

When you mention vaccines in this country, people's ears prick up.  It is a rather contentious issue in this country (and around the world, for that matter).  Most people think the controversy around vaccines is a new thing or has been going on for a while.  Some would say it peaked in the 2020's because of COVID-19.  Some would say it goes back further, to the 1990's with the Measles-Mumps-Rubella (MMR) vaccine.  Still other might say it goes even further than that, to the 1970's with Diphtheria-Pertussis-Tetanus (DPT) vaccine.

Actually, the debate over, and outright fight against, vaccines goes all the way back to the 1700's and the original American colonies.  (Yes, that far back.)  

The big argument then surrounded the smallpox disease.  An outbreak of smallpox in Boston even prompted a Puritan minister, the Rev. Cotton Mather, to support the vaccine's use.  The controversy surrounded the vaccine containing a mild form of the disease (called variolation).  The intent was to allow the body's own immune system to fight the disease in order to protect it from contracting a serious, and possibly lethal, case of smallpox.  (Rev. Mather was even physically attacked for his stance.)

While the final smallpox vaccine wasn't discovered until near the end of the century, the widespread acceptance and use of the vaccine also caused a rise in opposition.  The Anti-Vaccination Society of America, founded in 1879, was the first of many groups against the vaccine.  The opposition was so great, it resulted in a landmark Supreme Court case in 1905, Jacobson v. Massachusetts, which decided that individual states had the right to require vaccinations for public health reasons.  The plaintiff, Rev. Henning Jacobson, said the vaccine mandate violated his personal liberty and rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. 

Sound familiar?

The DPT vaccine came under attack in the 1970's and 1980's, when people in America and the United Kingdom claimed the pertussis part of the vaccine was unsafe, allegedly causing neurological problems.  While a whole-cell pertussis vaccine did cause rare side effects (e.g. seizures, persistent crying, hypotonic-hyporesponsive episodes [going limp and unresponsive]), further research led to an updated, even safer version of the vaccine. 

The 1990's saw the use Thimerosol in certain childhood flu vaccines as a preservative causing elevated concern due to it containing mercury.  While studies had concluded it was safe, and not causing brain damage, as was asserted, it was eventually decided just this year to remove it from any and all of the few remaining vaccines containing it.  

The MMR vaccine didn't come out until 1971 -- I could have used that one, as I had a case of the mumps when I was young -- but attacks on it peaked in the late 1990's.  Beginning in 1998, and continuing through the early 2000's, an English surgeon, Dr. Andrew Wakefield began to speak out against the vaccine, claiming it caused autism in children.  Twelve of his colleagues joined him in publishing a case series in Lancet, a medical journal.  It sparked a mass hysteria resulting in parents around the world wanting to avoid the MMR vaccine for their children. 

Their conclusions were almost immediately refuted by other medical professionals, resulting in an initial retraction by ten of the twelve colleagues of Wakefield.  Their entire work was eventually withdrawn by the Lancet, following the publication's discovery of Wakefield's anti-vaccine work being funded by lawyers representing parents who filed lawsuits against certain pharmaceutical companies that produced the vaccine.  (Wakefield seemed to have, somehow, forgotten to mention that part.)  Lancet also published a public apology, The British Medical Journal exposed the fraud engaged in by Wakefield and his colleagues for financial gain, and he was found guilty of serious professional misconduct, resulting in his being barred by the UK General Medical Council (GMC) from practicing medicine.  The two colleagues who did not retract their stance also faced serious repercussions from the GMC.

Boy oh boy, the MMR vaccine's had quite the workout.  Wait, there's more, and I'll get to that shortly.

Beginning in 2020, the COVID-19 vaccine was a prime target for the anti-vaccine movement, including the participation of some politicians (e.g. Donald Trump, former POT Florida Representative Dave Weldon, and current POT Florida Governor Ron De Santis).  The result was, and still is, a misunderstanding and mistrust of the medical and governmental authorities overall, with Dr. Anthony Fauci and the Center for Disease Control (CDC) being two of the most notable targets.  

Now, back to the MMR vaccine.  The current Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., has spread many anti-vaccine conspiracy theories, including Andrew Wakefield's work.  Citing Wakefield's discredited work has been a source of his restarting the "MMR vaccine causes autism" debate.  (He has also recently cited Tylenol's use by pregnant women and circumcised males as causes of autism... which he has since retracted)  Additionally, he has claimed the cancer-preventative HPV vaccine is unsafe, and that the COVID-19 vaccine is "the deadliest vaccine ever made".  None of his claims have any proof to back them up.

Now, to be fair, there have, indeed, been some downsides to vaccines.  Anyone who claims they are, overall, infallible is clearly not telling the truth.  There have been some instances of problems with vaccines resulting in safer versions of those vaccines taking the place of previous versions, or the vaccine being removed altogether.  Some examples:

Tetanus contamination: In 1901, nine children died in Camden, New Jersey, from a tetanus contamination in some batches of the smallpox vaccine.  The 1902 Biologics Control Act -- the first act to control the manufacture and sale of biological products, like vaccines and serums -- was passed as a result.

Oral Polio Vaccine (OPV): The polio vaccine was discovered by Jonas Salk in the early 1950's, and an oral version of the vaccine (OPV) was later created by Albert Sabin.  These vaccinations were known for being given as drops on a sugar cube.  ("Just a spoonful of sugar," hmm?)  In rare cases (cited as 1 out of in 2.4 million doses), vaccine-related paralysis occurred due to the rare mutation of the weakened, but live virus in the vaccination into a much more harmful virus.  Eventually, the OPV was taken off the market.

The Cutter Incident: In 1955, contamination in the manufacture of some batches of Salk's polio vaccine, resulting in a live virus being included in the vaccine, resulted in some cases of paralysis and death.  More stringent manufacturing protocols were instituted.

1976 Swine Flu vaccine: At Fort Dix in New Jersey (now Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst), there was an outbreak of the swine flu virus (A/H1N1), leaving one dead and thirteen hospitalized.  The outbreak was so fast that the government decided on a swift national response.  The vaccination program proceeded too quickly, however, and it caused an increase in reports of Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS), which can be fatal.  It was determined that the response was much too rapid and overdone.  (No doubt, this added to concerns over vaccines in general.)

Oral Typhoid Fever vaccine: An older version of an oral vaccine for typhoid fever, first used in America in the late 1980's, was also linked to GBS (mentioned above).  Like other whole-cell vaccines that were discontinued, newer and safer versions of this vaccine were created and are still in use today.

It's understandable to be concerned about putting something into one's body.  Is it safe?  Is it not safe?  One's own safety is a purely natural concern.  Thus, anyone who has such concerns must not be seen in a negative light. 

However, looking at the evidence, including the examples or problems I listed above, a sober examination of the evidence shows that science pursues a proper solution and, when problems arise, course corrects for future versions of relative vaccines.  Even social and/or legal requirements may change accordingly.  Granted, my words here may never convince those skeptics out there, but scientific pursuits in the form of vaccines is always in the direction of what is best for us.

Throughout the course of my life, I have had several vaccines.  In my adult life, I continue to get necessary vaccines -- the COVID-19 vaccine being the latest series, not to mention the shingles vaccine in my stage of life -- because I believe in science.

Terry

Protest of Our Time: NO KINGS 2

© Occasionalities on Facebook

Last Saturday, millions upon millions of Americans rose up and marched in protest of the current political regime in power.  The occasion was the No Kings 2 protests.  If you thought the first No Kings protest (and its predecessor, Hands Off) was a big deal, this one blew them away.

The first protest that kicked this all off took place on April 5th, called Hands Off, mostly in opposition to Donald Trump and Elon Musk (with his DOGE initiative).  Setting the precedent, protests were held in all fifty American states.  Over 1,200 locations nationwide hosted approximately 3,000,000 protestors, with additional protests taking place abroad, in England, Portugal, Germany, France, and Canada.

© 2025, Hands Off

That day was so successful, but equally matched, or perhaps overshadowed, by the disdain for the regime, another protest was planned.  This time, it was called No Kings, in opposition to Trump's and the federal government's overreach in its powers, and its outreach would be even larger.

© 2025, No Kings

Where Hands Off locations totaled 1,200, No Kings locations totaled around 2,100.  The Hands Off attendance of 3,000,000 was blown away at No Kings with an incredible 5,000,000 people attending nationwide.  

The date of June 14th was picked to coincide with the dictator regime-style military parade in Washington, D.C., alleged to mark the Army's 250th anniversary, and Trump's birthday.  (Yes, he got his military parade on his birthday.)  The protests garnered the larger, and more serious, news coverage... at least on independent media.  Abroad, protests took place in several U.S. territories (e.g. Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands) and ten other countries.  In countries where there are constitutional monarchies in place, alternate titles of No Dictators or No Tyrants were used to avoid any possible confusion.  

I attended a local march -- I'm not too terribly far from Philadelphia, but I wanted to stay more local -- and the route was selected, in part, to go past Jersey Kebab, a Mediterranean cuisine restaurant.  Its significance stems from the owners, Celal and Emine Emanet, being detained by ICE back in February during a raid on their restaurant.  The outcry from the community was immediate and powerful.  The couple was released weeks later, although Celal still has an immigration case pending.  (In fact, Emine was outside her restaurant during the march saying, "Thank you!  Thank you!" as the crowd passed.)  

 
As expected, Trump got worse and Americans' anger with him increased even more.  The organizers of the first No Kings protest decided to up the ante.  This was not hard to do because the worse he gets, the angrier people get.  A second No Kings march was planned for last Saturday, October 18, 2025. 

© 2025, No Kings

To say that the numbers just keep getting bigger is an understatement.  No Kings 1 had 5,000,000 protestors across 2,100 locations.  No Kings 2 blew that out of the water with a whopping 7,000,000 protesting across 2,700 locations!  

AND the number of countries outside of America holding protests the same day totaled twenty.  Here's the list:

Portugal

Spain

Netherlands

Norway

Sweden

Belgium

Czech Republic

Denmark

Finland

France

Germany

Italy

Ireland

United Kingdom

Canada

Mexico

Costa Rica

Japan

Iceland

South Korea (Yes, South Korea!)
Source: The 50501 Movement

Apparently, Donald Trump isn't popular around the world, either.

Members of the POT were calling this the "Hate America Rally", with some even saying among the numbers protesting would be Marxists, Socialists, and the "pro-Hamas wing of the Democratic Party".  That wasn't all they had to say. 

Many said there would be violence at the protests.  As it turns out, anywhere between twenty-two and thirty-six persons were arrested, depending on the source, and all of those arrested were supporters Trump and his regime.  Not a single No Kings 2 protestor -- out of 2,700 locations, in all fifty states, among 7,000,000 people -- was arrested.  Turns out, the POT was right about violence at the protests, but it came from their side.

Once again, I attended the same local march.  This time, the crowd looked physically larger.  Oh, it was!  The attendance there for the first No Kings march was 3,000.  Last Saturday, the attendance was an incredible 8,000 protestors! 

Proving himself once again to be the petty man-child that he is, the next day, Trump posted a disgusting AI-generated video with him flying a bomber -- his air mask was way too low on his face...I guess so more of it showed -- flying over protests and dropping feces on the crowd.  If you didn't know how he felt about those who oppose him, and I can't imagine how that would be the case, this video was a graphic representation of it.  Disgraceful!

Not to mention he had the removal of the entire East Wing of the White House started the next day as well.

At last Saturday's protests, there were a lot fantastic images of costumes, banners, signs, etc.  One of my favorite from all of them -- and that's a lot to choose from -- is the picture below.  It's an oversized rendering of the Constitution displayed at the Los Angeles No Kings 2 march.

Source: VPM News

Many protest songs were created before, and for, the No Kings marches.  One of the best examples that I saw on YouTube was from John D. Cundle [YouTube page].  He has dozens of great videos.  The one that struck me the hardest is the video below.  I'd recommend turning on the closed captions, as some of the lyrics are a little hard to hear, at least to me.  (The closed captions on this are excellent -- no misinterpreted words.)  

The organizers of the No Kings protests have already announced that there will be a third No Kings march.  (No date set yet.)  Clearly the No Kings movement is gaining momentum in this country (and around the world).  With numbers growing from 3,000,000 to 5,000,000 to 7,000,000, it's easy to see the people are fed up and are rising up.  More and more people are waking up to what's happening in this country and they are not tolerating it.

You and your loved ones are worth it.  Your neighbors are worth it.  Your fellow citizens are worth it.  Your country is worth it.

OUR FOUNDERS DIDN'T STAND UP TO ONE KING

JUST SO WE COULD BOW DOWN TO ANOTHER!

Terry

Comparison of the Day: SOCIALISM VS. DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM

Vermont Independent Senator Bernie Sanders' presidential runs in 2016 and 2020 raised eyebrows for many reasons, mostly positive.  One of the reasons was Sanders being a self-described Democratic Socialist.  Many people thought of strict socialism; many thought the term was a bit of an oxymoron.

A similar confusion seems to have risen again with Democratic New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani, who is also a self-described Democratic Socialist.  I thought a comparison between Socialism and Democratic Socialism could be helpful.

Before drawing that comparison, a historical comparison is necessary.  That comparison is between socialism and communism.  There has been a long-standing sense that the two are the same or very, very similar.  This perception, which has been around for generations, may be the basis for the misperception.  The comparison below is a basic one with very basic definitions of theoretical versions of both.. 

Communism                                                 Socialism
Seeks a classless, stateless society            Seeks a more equitable society
No private property or privately-owned        Private property and collective ownership
     resources                                                     of resources
Centralized, authoritarian government         Seeks to narrow the gap between classes 
Resources allocated by government            Resources allocated based on need
     determination                                       

While these are very basic definitions, it is also important to remember there have been very oppressive governments in place using these methods.

The other thing to remember is socialism has never been seen historically, or theoretically, as the goal.  Socialism is not the end game.  Communism has been seen as the end game within this sociopolitical paradigm.  Socialism has been seen as the means to a Communism end.

For those of you who may be thinking ahead after that last sentence (e.g. "Wait, if socialism means communism is coming, then any concerns about Mamdani or Sanders must be correct"), the pending comparison should put that concern at ease.

As socialism is the means to an end, often including revolution (which, historically, has included violence), Democratic Socialism is the end goal with democratic processes as both the means and the sustaining system.  Here are a few illustrations:

"Democratic Socialism = Communism" is not true.  Even though some ideas and concepts can be traced back further, democratic socialism arose in the nineteenth century as a oppositional response to the initial industrial capitalism movement.  A form of socialism that is democratic -- a "from the bottom up" modality -- is desired. 

"They want a government that controls everything" is not true.  Democratic socialism is opposed to any government with absolute control.  It seeks to have all social, political, and economic decisions be voted upon by everyone, with everyone having a say in what affects their lives.

"They only care about economic issues" is not true.  (You can refer to my explanation directly above on this one.)  Democratic socialist oppose all forms of oppression, domination, and inequality.  Issues such as racism, anti-LGBTQ+. patriarchy, fascism, and oligarchy are antithetical to, and incompatible with, democratic socialism.

"Democratic Socialists are really just 'Social Democrats' calling themselves by a different name" is not true.  Social Democrats have sought what's been called a "third way" of approaching politics, etc., while Democratic Socialists have seen the need to change current systematic structures via re-envisioning what those structures would/could/should look like.

"Democratic Socialists are actually just liberal Democrats" is not true.  It can be easy to accept this one as true, but Democratic Socialists see a distinction between liberalism and socialism, with liberalism as merely one element in the Democratic Party.  A third political party, one more socialism-based, is often sought.

I am not promoting anything here but education on this topic.  I completely get it when it comes to the idea that, if the word "socialism" is in your title, you're promoting something absolutely abhorrent.  The history of socialism, both linguistically and politically in the history of the world does give the idea of "democratic socialism" (e.g. any kind of socialism actually being democratic) an uphill battle in acceptance or even simple understanding.  I would suspect those who identify as "democratic socialist" also get it.  Just like the old idiom "Don't judge a book by its cover", the word "socialism" shouldn't necessarily be an automatic off-switch.

Food for thought.

Terry

Phrase of the Day: PARADOX OF TOLERANCE

Karl Popper was a British philosopher, born in Austria, who was alive during Adolf Hitler's reign of terror from the last months of 1939 to the mid-1940's.

Popper wrote his third book, The Open Society and Its Enemies, while in political exile in New Zealand during the course of World War II.  It was published in two volumes in 1945, the same year of the war's end.

In the book, Popper argues in favor of liberal democracy and against historicism (i.e., history governed by historical, universal, and inevitable laws), as well as distinguishing between closed societies (e.g., authority-based, tradition-based, claims of absolute truth, and superstition-based) and open societies (e.g., freedom of thought, learning from mistakes, critical rationalism, equal application of laws).  

One of the key points Popper makes in The Open Society and Its Enemies is his concept called the "paradox of tolerance".  

So, what's up with that?  Isn't tolerance a good thing?  Being able to tolerate is a positive ability, isn't it?  Isn't it a good thing by mere definition of its conceptual antonym, intolerance, and how intolerance is wrong?

Well, and this is strictly my speculation, Popper might say "yes and no" in response.  More to the point, Popper explains "paradox of tolerance" this way:  It might sound on the surface as though he's engaging in mere circular reasoning -- and I encourage you to read this passage more than once if you need to -- but Popper argues that society typically doesn't tolerate intolerance.  However, in order to be a tolerant society, society must then tolerate intolerance.  Therein lies an enemy of an open society and therein lies the paradox. 

In other words, the tolerant people don't tolerate the intolerant and the intolerant people don't tolerate the tolerant...BUT... in order to bring about a tolerant society, the tolerant people would have to tolerate the intolerant.  That naturally means, therefore, that the intolerant people would tolerate the tolerant.  This whole scenario, however, would ultimately lead to the intolerant people taking over the society, since the tolerant people would tolerate them.  Doesn't sound very good, does it?

The main problem with this is what defines "tolerance" and "intolerance", and those definitions are not universal.  Granted, that's the rub, but let's look at the lens through which Popper was looking when he wrote his two-volume work.  He wrote during the scourge that was Adolf Hitler and the Nazi regime.  Many people have asked how could the German people support such a madman.  Popper's explanation, utilizing his paradox, is one of circumstance dictating support.  

During World War I, Germany (widely seen as the main aggressor) led the Central Powers, which included the Ottoman Empire, Bulgaria, as well as Austria and Hungary (Austro-Hungarian Empire), among others.  The Central Powers were fighting against the Allied Powers (France, British Empire, Russia, Italy, Japan, America, etc.).  The Central Powers fell to the Allied Powers, following Germany's surrender in November of 1918 and, ultimately, the signing of the Treaty of Versailles in June of 1919.

Following their defeat, Germany suffered many setbacks, both politically and socially.  The Treaty of Versailles included Germany giving up a large amount of territory, accepting complete responsibility for causing the war (stated in the War Guilt Clause), significantly reducing its military, and paying billions in reparations to the countries of the Allied Powers.  All of this would contribute to the sense of resentment among Germany's citizens. 

In the years following World War I, significant social and political unrest arose in Germany.  The billions in reparations Germany had to pay was a huge blow, causing Germany's Great Depression.  At the worst point, around the latter part of 1923, the inflation rate reached a whopping 41% with prices, in effect, doubling every four days.  The government printed large amounts of the German mark, resulting people's savings being wiped out and the mark becoming worthless.  Unemployment reached 30% at that time and, after a period of improvement, once again in 1930.  

The combination of national resentment and economic collapse was fertile ground for someone, anyone, to take advantage of the people's suffering and sentiments, even to evil ends.  Adolf Hitler was that person, and take advantage, he did.  (The title of a 1989 BBC documentary was self-explanatory: The Fatal Attraction of Adolf Hitler.)  Karl Popper saw all this and how easily good people could acquiesce and support someone so evil, all the way to blaming groups of people who were not responsible for Germany's downfall as being responsible.  

A boiled-down version of this might be that, for a society to be good, it doesn't have to tolerate everything.

It's easy to see how Popper's elements of a closed society, like authoritarianism, absolutism, and superstition, can be quite handy for the intolerant to gain control and will dictate, if in control, how they will rule.  

This whole paradox theory does have a slippery slope element to it.  That is to say, it can be abused.  For example, and with an eye to public discourse and especially social media, if someone disagrees with you, you could simply level the claim that they are intolerant.  That would be it, period, and end of story in those same individual's mind.  Multiply that by others around you or the multitudes on social media, and the idea of "being intolerant" becomes multiplied, intensified, propagated.  

However, being intolerant is not the presence of mere disagreement, and many people think they are one in the same and act accordingly.  Expressed mathematically, it would read: Disagreement ≠ Intolerance

To tolerate means some sort of uncomfortableness exists.  Most often, we hear it associated with some sort of physical pain: I can tolerate the pain until I can get it stopped.  Sometimes, we use it referring to a person, or maybe a group: I tolerate his/her/their behavior because...[fill in the blank].  (We usually say "put up with" more so in those instances.)  So, to tolerate someone who is different than you (e.g., gay, trans, different ethnicity) really means you're not comfortable with them for whatever reason(s).  I'm not arguing that no one has the right to be uncomfortable with someone who is different, but (and I may be mincing words here) accepting of, or even just coexisting, with those who are different is more desirable.  

Popper's paradox extends to a much broader picture, society as a whole.  (There will remain those in the camp of mere disagreement means intolerance.)  Someone, or some group, that is genuinely intolerant of others (e.g. anti-LGBTQ, racist, anti-poor people) and acts and/or speaks accordingly really shouldn't be tolerated.  There a few ways this could be expressed:

Absolute tolerance is unsustainable.

Don't tolerate intolerance.

or

Be intolerant of intolerance.

I think Karl Popper's paradox of intolerance is just as relevant for us today as it was eight decades ago.  It seems we face similar threats in America, as do other countries around the world where right-wing parties have risen to power.  We are seeing how the intolerant rule.  It will only get worse from here.

And we should not tolerate it.

Terry

Word of the Day: HOMELESSNESS

Every year, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) releases a report called the Annual Homelessness Assessment Report (AHAR), which measures homelessness levels in this country.  Last December, HUD released its 2024 AHAR and the findings are disturbing.

It is important to note that the report does not count those without housing of their own who are living with family or friends, so it is safe to assume the full actual numbers are even higher.  

Some of the key factors in these numbers include rising rents, the ending of pandemic assistance programs, an influx of migrants increasing homeless numbers, and the lack of affordable housing in this country.  The only group that saw a decrease in homelessness from 2023 to 2024 is veterans.

Here are some key points from the report showing the increase/decrease from 2023:
Overall: ▲18.1% 
Families with children: ▲39.4%
Children: ▲33%
Individuals: ▲9.6%
Veterans: ▼7.6%  (Unsheltered veterans: ▼10.7%)

The investments in housing and assistance for veterans are clearly responsible for the decreases in their numbers.  Even the director of the National Alliance to End Homelessness highlights this:
                "The reduction in veteran homelessness offers us a clear roadmap for
                addressing homelessness on a larger scale."
                "With bipartisan support, adequate funding, and smart policy solutions,
                we can replicate this success and reduce homelessness nationwide.
                Federal investments are critical in tackling the country’s housing
                affordability crisis and ensuring that every American has access to safe,
                stable housing."  
                —Ann Oliva, CEO of National Alliance to End Homelessness

Black persons, the largest group of minorities in America, had an increase in homelessness of 32%, while comprising roughly 15% of the population.

On average, rental costs in this country increased 18% from 2023 to 2024.  (I can tell you my rent increased more than that.)  Early reports for this year so far show only slight increases, but we still have half of a year to go.

Of the current numbers of the homeless, 64% were in sheltered locations, while 36% were living without any shelter.

Shelters saw a 14% increase in people staying in them, often at or beyond capacity; many times, unable to help due to sheer numbers.  Food banks are, and have been, seeing a marked increase in people needing their assistance.  Food instability is at some of its highest levels in years.

Homelessness numbers in this country have increased every year since 2016.

According to the website HomelessLongIsland.org, homelessness in America has increased more than 130% in the last fifty years.  (The peak in the last fifty years was 200% from 1990-2000.) 

from HomelessLongIsland.org -- May 25, 2025

Charles Dickens once queried, "Is it better to have had something and lost it, than never to have had it at all?"  Many times, the idea of loving someone else is applied to this in terms loving someone and losing that love is better than never having that love at all.  With homelessness, however, I would say the same kind of application is not the same as love.  Poet Munia Khan sums it up in this quote:

The approximate total number of persons who are homeless in this country is well over 750,000.  Over three-quarters of a million persons!  There are approximately a1most 15,000,000 unoccupied homes in this country.  Fifteen million!  The math on this seems pretty simple.

If you take the unoccupied homes numbers and, to account for homes that are in extreme disrepair and simply not habitable, you cut the number in half... no... Let's be overly pessimistic and cut that number by three-quarters.  The number of unoccupied homes goes from just shy of 15,000,000 down to approximately 3,725,000 homes.  That roughly translates to almost 3,000,000 homes more than those who are homeless.

In short, with plenty of investments in infrastructure, homelessness in this country is conquerable!

And that's something that should be already taking place in a leader of the industrialized world.  We need more people raising this issue with their elected local, state, and federal officials, and, perhaps more importantly, the will 

As far too many of us lack housing, too many of those with the power to conquer this lack that will.  That needs to change.

Terry

Protest of our time: NO KINGS

[Author's note:  My sincere apologies for being away from here for an extended period of time.  The old adage "Life getting in the way of living it" seems a very good explanation.  Some major life matters that needed my attention came to the surface and they took my away from here.  Hopefully, this post marks my regular return to The Keyboard Commentarian.]

Last weekend, I had the opportunity to join a No Kings march in my home state of New Jersey.  Now, where I live -- and even more so, where the march was held -- is not far from Philadelphia, which was hosting its own No Kings march.  The reason wasn't laziness to join the march held in Haddon Township, but two-fold.

First, to be a part of a march was the main reason, but the reason why the location was picked was another reason.  The video below (from January of this year) will explain this:

© 2025, NJ Spotlight News

Celal was released the same day with an ankle monitor, while Emine was detained for two weeks before being released on bond. The community rallied around the family, raising funds for their legal defense and showing support for the restaurant, which has since reopened. 

The community's response included a GoFundMe campaign, mentioned in the above piece.  The final total raised, however, was more than $327,000 for the family's legal fees and living expenses.  The couple's son, Muhammed Emanet, was one of the speakers at the march's rally.

We passed the family's Jersey Kebab restaurant along the route.  Emine was outside with others when I walked passed the restaurant cheering us on and repeating THANK YOU!  It was quite the moment!

Below, are some pics I took during the march and rally.  Captions are added for words that might be a little difficult to read.

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped
in the flag and carrying a cross."  -- Sinclair Lewis 

"When are we allowed to say fascist?
-- exalts nation and often race above the individual
-- associated w/ a centralized autocracy
-- headed by a dictatorial leader
-- severe economic and social regimentation
-- forcible suppression of opposition"

"One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all"

Right: "Respect our existence or expect our resistance"

"Rise up, America     No kings since 1776"

"No troops in the people's streets"

Below, are two very short video clips from the march:

Chant: "Hey hey!  Ho ho!  Donald Trump has got to go!"

Chant: "Lock him up!"

While Philadelphia garnered more attention with 100,000 attendees, this march in Haddon Township had a whopping 3,000 participants!  Quite the number for a more localized march.

Peaceful assembly to protest is everyone's right.  Protest is invaluable and very much needed in these extremely difficult times.  I'm nowhere near in shape, and my body let me know for a few following, but it was important to me to take part.

Nationally, the No Kings protests had approximately 5,000,000 participants!

The next No Kings march is schedule, appropriately, on Independence Day, with the slogan Independence Without Tyranny.  Check our the No Kings website here.

The overarching umbrella group is known as Indivisible, and you can check their website here.

I would strongly encourage you to take part because... PROTEST IS PATRIOTIC!

Terry

SPECIAL BULLETIN - MARCH 14, 2025

 

Americans can no longer rely on the Democratic Party
to help fight against the POT, Felondent Donald Trump,
and Elon Musk's coup d'état

Democratic Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and nine other Senate Democrats have voted in favor of giving over more absolute power to the POT with a cloture vote on H.R. 1968.  The final vote was 62-38.  (Oh yeah... and they also voted to avoid a shutdown of Congress.)

With today's vote of cloture (end debate and move on to the vote} on the Continuing Appropriations Act passed in the House of Representatives earlier this week, the Senate has helped to do the following:

empower the POT for whatever it wants to do

empower DOGE (Elon Musk's "cutting waste" grift)

keep information on the POT's and DOGE's actions from the public

protect Felondent Trump from any consequences

take away any possibility of stopping trade wars from Congress  

Yes, all of that is in this Continuing Resolution! 

Schumer was quoted as saying, "I believe it is the best way to minimize the harm that the Trump administration will do to the American people.”  Really?  The best way?  He continued, "The CR is a bad bill, but as bad as the CR is, I believe allowing Donald Trump to take even much more power via a government shutdown is a far worse option."  That's an odd comparison.

Trump could make recess appointments, among other things, during a shutdown, and that can certainly cause problems, but the POT-controlled Congress is unwilling to reign him in, anyway.  Trump's been getting away with a lot that he shouldn't while this Congress has been in session. 

A shutdown affects government employees immediately; it will affect citizens, if a shutdown goes on long enough.  However, slashing the workforces of several government agencies already has negatively affected the employees, and will eventually negatively affect the rest of us here and around the world.  All this has been happening while this Congress has been in session.  

Like millions upon millions of my fellow citizens, my tightrope to walk in all of this is how what has been happening can affect me.  The weapon of fear-mongering is one the POT swings at us with the greatest of ease.  Clearly, like anyone else, I don't want any harm to come to me, but Trump, Musk, DOGE, the POT have all been wielding that weapon while this Congress has been in session. 

Schumer's concerns ended up being a pass for all of the POT.  His claiming the Felondent would cause more harm during a shutdown seems somewhat misguided.  Has Trump and his cultists caused lots of harm already?  Yes.  Can he do more harm with a shutdown?  Yes.  BUT...can he cause more harm without a shutdown?  That, too, is a yes.  Chuck Schumer lead chants of We will win! and We won't rest! a month-and-a-half ago.

Chuck Schumer and nine other Democrats voted today to rest.

Federal courts in this country seem to be the only entity standing up to the coup, and thank goodness for that.  However, Americans can no longer rely on the Democratic Party as its north star, its rod of justice, its defender.  Chuck Schumer needs to be voted out as Senate Minority Leader as soon as possible, and the Democrats, even as the minority party, need to fight at every opportunity.  (And there have been, and will be, plenty of opportunities.)  Fight, dammit, fight!

The Senate needs to vote on the bill and get it to Felondent Trump before midnight tonight. 

Here are the ten Democrats who voted in favor of the bill:
Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (NY)
Sen. Dick Durbin (IL)
Sen. Angus King, an independent who caucuses with Democrats (ME)
Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (NV)
Sen. John Fetterman (PA) [no surprise there]
Sen. Gary Peters (MI)
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (NY)
Sen. Brian Schatz (HI)
Sen. Maggie Hassan (NH)
Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (NH)

Terry

Question of the Day: PRESIDENT OR CHANCELLOR?

I was originally going to pose the question in this post's title as "President, King, or Chancellor?"  I decided to remove "King" because, as seriously as Felondent Trump meant it, it was too far on the ridiculous scale, considering the spirit of this post.  Our first ancestors and founders of this country had kings; our later ancestors and the rest of us in subsequent centuries, since 1789, have presidents.  Period.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy came to the White House last week to get on the same page, at least relatively so, with Trump.  He was going to agree to a mineral deal -- it's always about making money with Trump -- in order to move along some sort of a peace deal with Russia.  Zelenskyy's willingness to acquiesce to Trump's transactional "peace deal" requirement was not one-dimensional; he wanted security assurances from America.  To Trump, that translates as both: "I'm not blindly agreeing" and/or "You're not doing enough."

And you know how that must have landed with Trump.

Last Friday, we saw the most disgraceful, pathetic, childish, non-presidential, un-American and undiplomatic display from an American president.  Then again, the entire meeting was a set-up, so you can't expect any good behavior in that context, not just considering the presence of Felondent Trump.

Countless number of times, over the past ten years, we have seen cow-towing ring-kissers who will speak loudly, sometimes even shouting, to show their "strength", as if what they are talking about is the most important thing in the world.  Over the years, commentators have correctly identified these individuals as "speaking to an audience of one".  That audience of one is, of course, Donald Trump.

So, last Friday, there they were in the Oval Office: President Zelenskyy, Felondent Trump, Vice-President Vance, and various political Stepford husband supplicants, with many members of the press.  Just like the speaking to an audience of one mentioned above, this set-up job included not one, but two elements of speaking to an audience of one.

There was Vice-President J.D. Vance, who popped up like a preset jack-in-the-box, who started attacking Zelenskyy, harping over and over again about Zelenskyy saying thank you right there in that meeting.  He was speaking to an audience of one -- Donald Trump.

Felondent Trump, who also mentioned thanking him, was speaking Russian Anti-Ukraine talking points, cutting off Zelenskyy several times, and engaging in his typical hyperbolic rhetoric (e.g. "You don't have the cards", "Toying with the lives of millions of people", "Toying with World War III").  He, too, was speaking to an audience of one; that audience was Vladimir Putin. 

There was supposed to be a joint press conference with the two leaders -- never happened.  There was supposed to be a luncheon for Zelenskyy while at the White House, and the food was supposedly on carts ready to be served -- never happened.  Zelenskyy was even told to leave the White House after the blow up! 

Three years ago, Putin attacked Ukraine in a war Ukraine did not start.  Last week, Ukraine's leader Zelenskyy was verbally attacked by Trump and Vance in an argument Zelenskyy did not start.  Anyone else see the parallels?

But, according to Trump, Zelenskyy is the dictator.

Trump enacted this set-up to do nothing more than to dress down President Zelenskyy.  it was nothing short of disgusting!  At the end, Trump commented that it "made for good television".  No doubt it was good television for Vladimir Putin.

Four days later, on Tuesday, Donald Trump addressed a joint session of Congress in what amounted to, at least in some measure, a quasi-State of the Union Address.  From his opening declaration of "America is back!" -- maybe he meant America is going backwards -- it was a 100-minute slog-fest overflowing with deceptions, demagoguery, and divisiveness, along with self-aggrandizement and showmanship.

I think a more powerful protest by the Democrats would have been to walk out during the speech or to never show up, but I doubt the party leadership would have allowed for that.  I initially thought the paddle signs they held up with things like False, Musk Steals, Save Medicaid, and Protect Veterans written on them was a good protest -- Trump clearly didn't like them -- but I can see how others saw it as silly.  Still, the Democrats remaining seated the entire time -- they didn't rise for Trump's entrance, for any of his introductions of people in the gallery, or for specific points he was making.

As far as standing and cheering, the POT certainly did more than their fair share of both.  With them fully under his spell, Trump's band of sycophantic congressional cultists seized on every opportunity to shout and cheer like a sporting event crowd cheering on the home team scoring... or like an angry mob, giddy with delight, happily cheering the bully who just beat the hell out of someone.

Granted, someone like Trump can cause the worst out of a lot of people, even opponents, and we saw Texas Democratic Representative Al Green so enraged as to stand up, to remain standing, and to shout at Felondent Trump.  He was removed from the chamber; first time that's ever happened during a joint address.  Rep. Green said he would take whatever punishment came after exiting the chamber.

Today, he was censured by the House of Representatives.  He acknowledged what he did, and that the Speaker Mike Johnson was correct in removing him, etc., all while standing firm on his grievance that he was shouting during the address -- the Felondent does not have a mandate to gut Medicaid.  He stood his ground and took the punishment like a man, not like a petulant child.  (The petulant children were House POT members.)

Between last Friday and this past Tuesday, Felondent Trump seems to have made two grossly incorrect equivocations.  First, putting down someone else makes you look stronger (aka The Bully's Logic).  Second, Trump saying, "We will restore true democracy to America again" during his address equates fascist oligarchy with true democracy.  

Now we know what Felondent Trump understands as "true democracy".

In closing, let's go back to the title of this post.  It is a question related to Donald Trump, of course, and there are two ways to answer the question.  One way is in terms of the title he holds.  The other way is in terms of what he is doing.

Terry

BLACK HISTORY MONTH - POST #6

For my final post for Black History Month, I will add to the books I suggested back in "Post #2".  I have six more books for you to consider reading.

THIS BRIDGE CALLED MY BACK:

WRITINGS BY RADICAL WOMEN OF COLOR, FOURTH EDITION

by Cherrie Moraga and Gloria Alzaldúa

Originally released in 1981 and reissued in 2015, This Bridge Called

My Back is a testimony to women of color feminism as it emerged in

the last quarter of the twentieth century. Through personal essays,

criticism, interviews, testimonials, poetry, and visual art, the collection

explores, as coeditor Cherríe Moraga writes, "the complex confluence

of identities—race, class, gender, and sexuality—systemic to women

of color oppression and liberation."  The fourth edition contains an

extensive new introduction by Moraga, along with a previously

unpublished statement by Gloria Anzaldúa. The new edition also

includes visual artists whose work was produced during the same

period as Bridge, including Betye Saar, Ana Mendieta, and Yolanda

López, as well as current contributor biographies. [Amazon description] 

*   *   *   *

I KNOW WHY THE CAGED BIRD SINGS

by Mata Angelou

Sent by their mother to live with their devout, self-sufficient grandmother

in a small Southern town, Maya and her brother, Bailey, endure the ache

of abandonment and the prejudice of the local "powhitetrash."  At eight

years old and back at her mother’s side in St. Louis, Maya is attacked
by a man many times her age—and has to live with the consequences
for a lifetime. Years later, in San Francisco, Maya learns that love for
herself, the kindness of others, her own strong spirit, and the ideas of
great authors ("I met and fell in love with William Shakespeare") will
allow her to be free instead of imprisoned.  [Amazon description]

*   *   *   *

MULES AND MEN
by Zora Neale Hurston

For the student of cultural history, Mules and Men is a treasury

of Black America’s folklore as collected by Zora Neale Hurston,

the storyteller and anthropologist who grew up hearing the songs

and sermons, sayings and tall tales that have formed and oral

history of the South since the time of slavery. Set intimately
within the social context of Black life, the stories, "big old lies,"
songs, voodoo customs, and superstitions recorded in these
pages capture the imagination and bring back to life the humor
and wisdom that is the unique heritage of Black Americans.
[Amazon description]

*   *   *   *

FREEDOM IS A CONSTANT STRUGGLE: FERGUSON,
PALESTINE, AND THE FOUNDATIONS OF A MOVEMENT
by Angela Y. Davis

In these newly collected essays, interviews, and speeches,

world-renowned activist and scholar Angela Y. Davis

illuminates the connections between struggles against state

violence and oppression throughout history and around the

world.

Reflecting on the importance of black feminism,

intersectionality, and prison abolitionism for today's

struggles, Davis discusses the legacies of previous liberation

struggles, from the Black Freedom Movement to the South

African anti-Apartheid movement. She highlights connections

and analyzes today's struggles against state terror, from

Ferguson to Palestine.

Facing a world of outrageous injustice, Davis challenges us

to imagine and build the movement for human liberation. And

in doing so, she reminds us that "Freedom is a constant

struggle."  [Amazon description] 

*   *   *   *

THE FIRE NEXT TIME
by James Baldwin

At once a powerful evocation of James Baldwin's early life

in Harlem and a disturbing examination of the consequences

of racial injustice, the book is an intensely personal and

provocative document from the iconic author of If Beale

Street Could Talk and Go Tell It on the Mountain. It consists

of two "letters," written on the occasion of the centennial of

the Emancipation Proclamation, that exhort Americans, both

black and white, to attack the terrible legacy of racism. 

Described by The New York Times Book Review as "sermon,

ultimatum, confession, deposition, testament, and chronicle...

all presented in searing, brilliant prose."  [Amazon description]

*   *   *   *

HOW THE WORD IS PASSED: A RECKONING WITH
THE HISTORY OF SLAVERY ACROSS AMERICA
by Clint Smith

Beginning in his hometown of New Orleans, Clint Smith leads

the reader on an unforgettable tour of monuments and

landmarks—those that are honest about the past and those

that are not—that offer an intergenerational story of how

slavery has been central in shaping our nation's collective

history, and ourselves.

It is the story of the Monticello Plantation in Virginia, the estate

where Thomas Jefferson wrote letters espousing the urgent

need for liberty while enslaving more than four hundred people.

It is the story of the Whitney Plantation, one of the only former

plantations devoted to preserving the experience of the

enslaved people whose lives and work sustained it. It is the

story of Angola, a former plantation-turned-maximum-security

prison in Louisiana that is filled with Black men who work

across the 18,000-acre land for virtually no pay. And it is the

story of Blandford Cemetery, the final resting place of tens of

thousands of Confederate soldiers.

A deeply researched and transporting exploration of the

legacy of slavery and its imprint on centuries of American

history, How the Word Is Passed illustrates how some of our

country's most essential stories are hidden in plain view—

whether in places we might drive by on our way to work,

holidays such as Juneteenth, or entire neighborhoods like

downtown Manhattan, where the brutal history of the trade in

enslaved men, women, and children has been deeply

imprinted.  [Amazon description]

*   *   *   *

I hope you will find any of these books I've mentioned here or in my earlier post (Post #2) interesting enough to read them.  If you have any other suggestions, please click on Post a Comment below.

We need to learn our history.  Black history is American history.


Terry