One protest with about two dozen demonstrators gathered outside Chicago Police District 18 on Sunday.
They described themselves as a coalition that included local Palestinian organizers as well as survivors of police torture and brutality.
These groups shared what they said was a joint struggle linked by billions in tax dollars used to marginalize their communities further, whether it's to fund what they call genocide in Gaza or mass incarcerations in the United States.
Each of these demonstrations, they say, is designed to highlight particular demands of the coalition as they build support and grow in numbers on the road to the convention in August.
His story of injustice serves as a source of motivation for what can happen when people mobilize.
They recently withdrew an application with the city for a permit as a response to the removal of the pro-Palestinian encampment at DePaul University.
The original article contains 310 words, the summary contains 146 words. Saved 53%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
He gets 6 months, yet a doctor performing an abortion could face 99 years in prison, $100K+ fines, and lose their livelihood as their medical license is revoked.
This is another reason to get out there and vote! The last day to register to vote is Oct 10. As for the last 44 years, we have 2 weeks of early voting, which starts on October 23, 2024 and ends on Nov 3 with the final day to vote on Nov 5! Check your county website for specific hours, some polling stations may be open during the weekend!
What is going on with Honda? Seems like once a month for the last several months, I’m hearing about a new recall with their cars. Or am I just seeing the same news being reported over and over?
I like Honda, I have a newish Honda, and it’s my second or third. “Luckily” only one of these recent recalls applies to my car. But damn, seems like quality is slipping.
If you’re curious if a recall applies to your vehicles, and you’re in the US, visit www.nhtsa.gov/recalls. Just need a VIN and it’ll tell you what recalls are in effect.
Technically, it’s for faulty seat sensors that determine if the airbag will trigger.
Honda says that a weight sensor, which is meant to disable the passenger airbags if the seat is occupied by a child or child seat, might not work properly, allowing the airbags to deploy during a crash.
They At the least one was also blaming the mother on Reddit.
“Sad. They should not have tried to make such a dangerous trip. I would hope most mothers wouldn’t out their kids in harm’s way, like this.”
“Mexico should stop being such a sh!thole that it makes people want to come to the US. The US should do a better job at deterring illegals. This mother should’ve been a better mother and not put her kids in harm’s way.”
Edit: I think it’s safe to say if one is saying it outloud there are many more who believe the same thing.
I know most people on here know this, but always bears repeating since this “states’ rights” nonsense always gets repeated so much to this day. Straight from South Carolina’s letter of secession:
But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding states to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the general government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The states of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them.
The confederates were anti states’ rights if anything, they were trying to use the federal government to enforce their slave laws in the northern states. If you’re going to take a “states’ rights” is the reason for the war approach, it was the northern states fighting for their right to disregard the slave holding laws of the south and of the federal government if anything. I guess you could maybe go super abstract and say they seceded to assert a right to secede or something, which seems awfully circular to me. But for anyone in doubt, the primary sources are all out there and easily accessible. Feel free to read for yourself and see slavery front and center in every letter of secession as the reason for secession.
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.
Agreed, I don’t see how anyone could read any of the letters of secession and not instantly see how slavery is the primary reason. South Carolina’s letter (first state to leave) is a nice easy counter argument to the states’ rights crowd, since it goes on and on for pages explicitly denying the northern states rights and whining that the north should be forced to enforce slavery laws there by the federal government, and how dare the northern states disobey federal laws enforcing slave owners “rights.”
They see it as the primary reason they just veil it with pleasantries because it’s hard to deal with the fact that their forefathers were unequivocally racists, traitors and general bigots.
I mean no, they’re not wrong it is about states rights in relation to owning people, it can be both and also a interstate b trade dispute which is why they wanted the federal government to step in.
Essentially “we’re losing in trade to x because slaves are running to x so they can be free” and then they asked the federal government to step in and say slaves that escaped to the States should still be seen as property and not granted freedom. The federal government took no stance and are largely at fault by inactivity.
Yes they did fight for the right for slavery to stay legal in their states, but they were totally against state’s rights when it came to other aspects of slavery. The fugitive slave law and other acts by the federal government attempted to impose slavery rights in northern states. It’s not that the southern states had some high minded principle of the autonomy of states or something. Only when it would result in something they wanted, like slavery. Otherwise they were happy to discard “states’ rights.”
Well no again, they saw it as a states rights thing on their end and an encroachment on those rights by neighboring free states. Sure, the feds did indeed make trivial attempts to squash the issue but tried to take a idiotic middle ground of appeasement when it should have been a military march into the slave holding states and an occupation thereof.
It’s a trade dispute, the trade is just morally wrong.
Your statement makes no sense. Think of the classical personal rights metaphor, “Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose.” In more abstract terms, your rights should be uninpinged until such point that they impinge on my rights, premised by the agreement that our rights are equal otherwise.
Now let’s look at state’s rights. If state’s are required to allow slavery, that is giving more rights to the states that have slavery than it is to the states that don’t. If slavery are required to not allow slavery, that is giving more rights to the states that don’t have slavery. The stance that best reflects state’s rights as being equal unless they impinge on the other states is to allow those who want slavery to have it and to allow those states that don’t want slavery to abolish it. From a practical standpoint, that also means that bringing your slaves to a state that abolishes slavery frees them, otherwise the laws from your state have greater authority than the laws of the state you are actually operating in, which doesn’t meet the basis of equal unless they impinge. That also means if your slaves escape to a free state, it is your responsibility and not the free state’s to stop them from entering that state, and certainly returning them isn’t an obligation since that would violate their law that no person can be enslaved.
As has been pointed out previously, this was the state of things until a federal law was enacted to reduce the rights of the states who opposed slavery, which wasn’t enforced adequately (in the opinion of the slave-holding states).
So, if you want to use the fig leaf of the Civil War being about state’s rights, then the only way that makes sense is if the seceeding states wanted states to have fewer rights, not more. Of course, there is also the option of denying reality and saying whatever makes you feel best, facts and logic be damned.
I never said racism makes sense nor racists for that matter. What they believe and what is logical to believe clearly don’t match up so why are you trying to make the illogical logical.
It wasn’t even that. The states that seceeded were not fighting for states’ rights, they were fighting against them.
The Fugitive Slaves Act was federal law. The Wisconsin Supreme Court had found that the law was unconstitutional and rejected the requirement to return slaves. Vermont passed the Freedom Act which freed any escaped slaves who reached the state. Kansas had voted to adopt a constitution that prohibited slavery, although it wasn’t admitted as a state until after the Senators from the South resigned.
In their articles of secession, South Carolina specifically cited the federal government’s lack of effort in upholding federal laws, along with Lincoln’s pledge not to force slavery onto new territories added to the Union, as the primary reasons for attempting to leave.
Lincoln was not threatening to abolish slavery, and did not do so until 2 years into the war.
Bigots like to reimagine the Civil War as the scrappy farm-country folks fighting against northern aggression for the right of self-determination, when in fact the opposite was true. It was slave-owning fat cats who wanted to force their will onto abolitionists by way of bigger government and federal legislative overreach.
It was 100 years later when “state’s rights” because a conservative rallying cry, when Southern states were being forced to desegregate during the Civil Rights era.
Don’t let those fuckers continue to rewrite history, casting their forebears as the victims.
To them it’s woke history. A Republican from the north (eg. Chris Christie) might tell you it was the right answer, but if you’re from the South you can’t ever admit it.
cbsnews.com
Active