Today in History: The Seneca Falls Convention
In 1848, the first 'Convention to discuss the social, civil, and religious condition and rights of Woman' convened at the Wesleyan Chapel in Seneca Falls, N.Y.
In 1969, Apollo 11 and its astronauts —Neil Armstrong, Edwin 'Buzz' Aldrin, and Michael Collins —went into orbit around the moon.
In 1975, the Apollo and Soyuz space capsules that were linked in orbit for two days separated.
In 1979, the Nicaraguan capital of Managua fell to Sandinista guerrillas, two days after President Anastasio Somoza fled the country.
In 1980, the Moscow Summer Olympics began, minus dozens of nations that were boycotting the games because of Soviet military intervention in Afghanistan.
In 1989, 111 people were killed when United Air Lines Flight 232, a DC-10 which sustained the uncontained failure of its tail engine and the loss of hydraulic systems, crashed while making an emergency landing at Sioux City, Iowa; 185 other people survived.
Advertisement
In 1990, baseball's all-time hits leader, Pete Rose, was sentenced in Cincinnati to five months in prison for tax evasion.
In 1993, President Bill Clinton announced a policy allowing gays to serve in the military under a compromise dubbed 'don't ask, don't tell, don't pursue.'
In 2006, prosecutors reported that Chicago police beat, kicked, shocked, or otherwise tortured scores of Black suspects from the 1970s to the early 1990s to try to extract confessions from them.
In 2005, President George W. Bush announced his choice of federal appeals court judge John G. Roberts Jr. to replace Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. (Roberts ended up succeeding Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, who died in September 2005; Samuel Alito followed O'Connor.)
In 2013, in a rare and public reflection on race, President Barack Obama called on the nation to do some soul searching over the death of Trayvon Martin and the acquittal of his shooter, George Zimmerman, saying the slain Black teenager 'could have been me 35 years ago.'
In 2018, a duck boat packed with tourists capsized and sank in high winds on a lake in the tourist town of Branson, Missouri, killing 17 people.
In 2021, Paul Allard Hodgkins, a Florida man who breached the U.S. Senate chamber on Jan. 6, 2021, carrying a Trump campaign flag, received an eight-month prison term in the first resolution of a felony case arising from the US Capitol insurrection. (In 2025, President Donald Trump pardoned, commuted the prison sentences, or vowed to dismiss the cases of all 1,500-plus people charged with crimes in the riot.)
Advertisement
In 2022, Britain
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
39 minutes ago
- USA Today
Elina Svitolina ripped bettors for crossing line after Naomi Osaka loss
In case it wasn't already clear, bets you make on any sporting event are your responsibility and YOUR responsibility alone. An athlete is not obligated to follow through and will not tailor their performance based on whatever transaction a complete stranger agreed to behind the scenes (not to mention the ethical and legal concerns). And the moment you start venting out your frustrations to an athlete who "let you down," you've lost the plot entirely. That seems to be what's happened with Elina Svitolina. After losing to Naomi Osaka in the National Bank Open quarterfinals on Tuesday, the No. 13-ranked tennis player in the world took to her Instagram story to share screenshots of a handful of "shameful" messages from bettors filled with vitriol and anger over her failure at the hands of Osaka. Svitolina included messages that invoked death threats. Some mocked Svitolina's Ukrainian heritage amid the country's ongoing war with Russia. Others made racist comments about her husband, Gaël Monfils, a Black fellow professional tennis player. For obvious sensitivity reasons, I will not link out any of the images here. You can find them in Svitolina's story if you're so inclined. To say the least, this is not OK. Not at all. 'To all the bettors: I'm a mom before I'm an athlete,' Svitolina wrote in her Instagram story. 'The way you talk to women – to mothers – is SHAMEFUL. If your moms saw your messages, they'd be disgusted.' Friends, please remember what I'm about to say. Just because you lost a bet over a sports outcome does not mean you get to start harassing the person you think cost you money. Athletes are still, and stay with me here, human beings who deserve common decency like any of us. They're not props. The only person who costs you money in these kinds of situations is you. The betting buck starts and stops with you. Always.
New York Post
39 minutes ago
- New York Post
Voting rights protected by the historic Voting Rights Act threatened as law has its 60th anniversary
WASHINGTON (AP) — Wednesday is the 60th anniversary of the day President Lyndon Johnson made his way to the U.S. Capitol and, with Martin Luther King Jr. standing behind him, signed the Voting Rights Act into law. The act protected the right to vote and ensured the government would fight efforts to suppress it, especially those aimed at Black voters. For many Americans, it was the day U.S. democracy fully began. That was then. 7 President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act of 1965 60 years ago. AP The law has been slowly eroding for more than a decade, starting with the 2013 Supreme Court decision ending the requirement that all or parts of 15 states with a history of discrimination in voting get federal approval before changing the way they hold elections. Within hours of the ruling, some states that had been under the preclearance provision began announcing plans for stricter voting laws. Those changes have continued, especially since the 2020 presidential election and President Donald Trump's false claims that widespread fraud cost him reelection. The Supreme Court upheld a key part of the Voting Rights Act in 2023, but in its upcoming term it's scheduled to hear a case that could roll back that decision and another that would effectively neuter the law. Voting rights experts say those cases will largely determine whether a landmark law passed during a turbulent era decades ago will have future anniversaries to mark. 'We're at a critical juncture right now,' said Demetria McCain, director of policy at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. 'And, let's be clear, our democracy is only about to turn 60 when the Voting Rights Act anniversary gets here. I say that because there are so many attacks on voting rights, particularly as it relates to Black communities and communities of color.' Native Americans celebrate a win that could be temporary The reservation of the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians is about 10 miles (16 kilometers) from the Canadian border, a region of forests, small lakes and vast prairie land. Its main highway is a mix of small houses, mobile homes and businesses. A gleaming casino and hotel stand out, not far from grazing bison. In 2024, the tribe and another in North Dakota, the Spirit Lake Tribe, formed a joint political district for the first time. They had filed a lawsuit arguing that the way lines were drawn for state legislative seats denied them the right to elect candidates of their choice. U.S. District Court Chief Judge Peter Welte agreed and put a new map in place. 7 The Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians and another tribe in North Dakota, the Spirit Lake Tribe, formed a joint political district for the first time in 2024. AP State Rep. Collette Brown ran for the legislature because she wanted to see more Native American representation, and she won under the new map. 'It felt surreal. I felt accomplished, I felt recognized,' said Brown, a plaintiff in the lawsuit and the Spirit Lake Tribe's Gaming Commission executive director. 'I felt, OK, it's time for us to really start making change and really start educating from within so that we're not silenced.' Brown, a Democrat, co-sponsored several bills on Native American issues that became law, including aid for repatriation of remains and artifacts and alerts for missing Indigenous people. 7 The future of the tribes' district is in the hands of the Supreme Court. AP This year's anniversary of the Voting Rights Act 'forces you to look at how far we've come,' from Native Americans to women, said Jamie Azure, chairman of the Turtle Mountain tribe. Now the future of their district is in the hands of the Supreme Court. Will individuals be allowed to file voting rights challenges? The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers North Dakota and six other states, overturned Welte's decision 2-1, saying the tribes and entities such as the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and the ACLU do not have a right to sue over potential violations of voters' constitutional rights. That ruling expanded on an earlier 8th Circuit opinion out of Arkansas that rejected a different challenge on the same grounds. Late last month, a 3rd Circuit court panel ruled in a separate case out of Arkansas that only the U.S. attorney general can file such cases — not private individuals or groups. 7 The University of Michigan Law School Voting Rights Initiative found that since 1982 nearly 87% of claims under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act were from private individuals and organizations. AP Those decisions upended decades of precedent. The Supreme Court has stayed the ruling for the tribes while it decides whether it will take the North Dakota case. The University of Michigan Law School Voting Rights Initiative found that since 1982 nearly 87% of claims under that part of the Voting Rights Act, known as Section 2, were from private individuals and organizations. Leaving individuals without the ability to file challenges is especially troublesome now because the Justice Department under Trump, a Republican, seems focused on other priorities, said Sophia Lin Lakin, who heads the ACLU's Voting Rights Project. Every morning, the NY POSTcast offers a deep dive into the headlines with the Post's signature mix of politics, business, pop culture, true crime and everything in between. Subscribe here! 7 Voters waiting in line to cast their ballots in Fort Defiance, Ariz., on Election Day in 2024. AP The government's voting rights unit has been dismantled and given new priorities that, she said, have turned enforcement 'against the very people it was created to protect.' The Justice Department declined to answer questions about its voting rights priorities, cases it is pursuing or whether it would be involved in the voting rights cases coming before the nation's highest court. Supreme Court weighs another case on race and congressional districts Two years ago, voting rights activists celebrated when the Supreme Court preserved Section 2 in a case out of Alabama that required the state to draw an addition congressional district to benefit Black voters. Now it's poised to rehear a similar case out of Louisiana that could modify or undo that decision. 7 The Justice Department declined to answer questions about its voting rights priorities, cases it is pursuing or whether it would be involved in the voting rights cases coming before the nation's highest court. AP The court heard the case in March but did not make a decision during the term. In an order on Friday, the court asked the lawyers to supply briefs explaining 'whether the State's intentional creation of a second majority-minority congressional district violates the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments to the U. S. Constitution.' Robert Weiner, the director of voting rights for the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, said while it is a 'matter of concern' that the court is asking the question, the fact the nine justices did not reach a decision during the last term suggests there weren't five votes already. 'They wouldn't need re-argument if the sides had already been chosen,' he said. Trump's Justice Department shifts focus on voting issues At a time when the remaining protections of the Voting Rights Act are under threat, the Justice Department has shifted its election-related priorities. Under Attorney General Pam Bondi, it has dropped or withdrawn from several election- and voting-related cases. The department instead has focused on concerns of voter fraud raised by conservative activists following years of false claims surrounding elections. 7 Under Attorney General Pam Bondi, the Justice Department has dropped or withdrawn from several election- and voting-related cases. AP The department also has sent requests for voter registration information as well as data on election fraud and warnings of election violations to at least 19 states. In addition to the shift in focus at the Justice Department, federal legislation to protect voting rights has gone nowhere. Democrats have reintroduced the John Lewis voting rights bill, but it's legislation they failed to pass in 2022 when they held both houses of Congress and the White House and needed some Republican support in the Senate. Earlier this year, Trump signed an executive order seeking to overhaul voting in the states, which includes a documentary proof-of-citizenship requirement on the federal voting form, though much of it has been blocked in the courts. The GOP-controlled House passed a bill that would require proof of citizenship to register to vote. And gerrymandering state legislative and congressional districts remains prevalent. The slow chipping away at the 60-year-old law has created a nation with an unequal distribution of voting rights, said Sean Morales-Doyle, director of the voting rights center at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University. Some states have been active in expanding access to voting while others have been focused on restricting the vote. 'The last five to 10 years,' he said, 'the experiences of voters increasingly depend on where they live.'
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Will Trump's order encouraging removal of homeless from city streets 'restore public order' — or eat up public money?
Homelessness has long been a significant issue in the U.S. — and things only seem to be getting worse. Don't miss Thanks to Jeff Bezos, you can now become a landlord for as little as $100 — and no, you don't have to deal with tenants or fix freezers. Here's how I'm 49 years old and have nothing saved for retirement — what should I do? Don't panic. Here are 5 of the easiest ways you can catch up (and fast) Want an extra $1,300,000 when you retire? Dave Ramsey says this 7-step plan 'works every single time' to kill debt, get rich in America — and that 'anyone' can do it The federal government said the number of people experiencing homelessness on a single night in 2024 was the highest on record at 771,480. This figure has been climbing every year since 2017, when it was at 550,996. In order to address the 'root cause' of homelessness and 'restore public order,' President Trump recently signed an executive order to make it easier for states to remove people from the streets and get them into long-term institutions for treatment of addictions and mental health conditions. This isn't the only major action against homelessness this summer. In late June, the Supreme Court ruled that homeless individuals can be arrested or fined for sleeping in public areas. In a statement to USA Today, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said that Trump is "delivering on his commitment to Make America Safe Again and end homelessness across America." However, the move is not necessarily being looked at as a positive one. What the new executive order on homelessness entails On July 24, President Trump signed an executive order titled "Ending Crime and Disorder on America's Streets." The order says that 'endemic vagrancy, disorderly behavior, sudden confrontations, and violent attacks' have made America's cities unsafe, and the 'overwhelming majority' of people experiencing homelessness are either addicted to drugs, have a mental condition, or both. It directs Attorney General Pam Bondi to reverse judicial precedents and end consent decrees that limit state and local governments' ability to commit individuals on the streets who are a risk to themselves or others. This aims to make forcibly moving people into institutions easier. Federal grants will be prioritized for states that enforce prohibitions on acts related to homelessness, like open illicit drug use, urban camping and loitering, and urban squatting. Funding will also be redirected away from 'housing first' programs and so-called 'harm reduction' or 'safe consumption' efforts. 'At a time when unaddressed housing costs are driving record numbers of people into homelessness, this order demonstrates a lack of focus and understanding on what our communities — both red and blue — need to address this crisis,' said Ann Oliva, CEO of the National Alliance to End Homelessness. 'Instead, it largely focuses on punishing people for being homeless and denying desperately needed funds to overwhelmed and under-resourced frontline workers.' The nonprofit criticized the attack on the 'housing first' approach, the push for forced institutionalization, and the violation of the right to privacy for the homeless. The National Homelessness Law Center said it "strongly condemns" Trump's order, saying it "deprives people of their basic rights and makes it harder to solve homelessness." The group also said that the order "does nothing to lower the cost of housing or help people make ends meet." If anything, it expects that more people will be driven into homelessness. 'As a licensed mental health professional, I know that forced treatment is unethical, ineffective, and illegal," Jesse Rabinowitz of the National Homelessness Law Center told USA Today. Alexandria, Va., Mayor Alyia Gaskins called Trump's executive order "cruel" in an NPR interview. "It requires states and cities like mine to demonstrate aggressive enforcement," she said. "It ends support for housing first policies. It encourages the expanded use of law enforcement all at a time when we know that the criminalization of homelessness doesn't work." The National Low Income Housing Coalition said that Trump's executive order will 'do nothing to address the underlying causes of America's housing crisis and instead make it harder for states and communities to address these challenges.' Read more: Nervous about the stock market in 2025? Find out how you can How homelessness policies impact taxpayers When cities experience high levels of homelessness, it can impact residents in many ways. It can cause them to feel unsafe in their own backyards and result in lower property values. So addressing the homelessness crisis could yield positive results for residents and property owners — provided it's done the right way. Critics of Trump's approach feel that the order does not address the root of the issue and instead focuses on mandating institutionalization and treating homelessness as a crime. It rejects the housing first approach to the problem, which involves quickly moving the homeless into affordable housing and then addressing their other needs. The National Low Income Housing Coalition says the country is short 7.1 million affordable rental homes. If the critics are right, we could see homeless numbers increase. Forcing the homeless into facilities could also burden a health care system that's already overwhelmed and seeing cuts in federal spending with the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Experts say there aren't enough facilities to treat the homeless. "The order seeks to make it easier to commit people with mental illness who can't care for themselves, while also promising grants and other assistance to help ramp up commitments, and threatening to divert funding away from places that don't push people into treatment facilities 'to the maximum extent permitted by law,'" noted CalMatters. "But the order doesn't include funding for new mental health or addiction treatment beds. In a state already struggling with a lack of resources, some experts said Trump's order for more forced treatment feels hollow." 'There really is not a lot of bed space. And with budgets being strapped the way that they are these days, particularly with cuts coming from D.C., it's going to — states and communities are going to be hard-pressed to really build those facilities and be able to meet the needs of the people that are looking to be — that people want to put away,' said David Ovalle, national reporter focusing on opioids and addictions for The Washington Post, to PBS. If states decide to foot at least a portion of the bill for housing and treating the homeless long-term, it could divert critical health care resources away from other people in need. It could also force municipalities to increase taxes if they're not given enough federal funding to enforce treatment, burdening taxpayers even more. Addressing the nation's homelessness crisis is crucial. And if done correctly, everyone benefits. Unfortunately, it seems like the current approach may be one in which almost everybody loses out. This article provides information only and should not be construed as advice. It is provided without warranty of any kind.
