Upworthy's book GOOD PEOPLE, now available - take a look!

Shop
 Explore 

Politics

Democracy

People are defending and praising park rangers as National Parks jobs get slashed

The underappreciated heroes of our public lands.

Photo credit: Canva

Park rangers protect our public lands.

If there's one thing that practically every American can agree on, it's the beauty and magnificence of our National Parks. From Acadia to Zion, National Parks have been called our nation's "crown jewels," a testament not only to the geographic diversity of the American landscape but to our commitment to preserving lands belonging to "we the people."

Since before their official establishment in 1916, our National Parks have been serviced and protected by park rangers who enforce laws and park rules, educate visitors about the environment, maintain park infrastructure and make sure everyone who visits the parks is able to do so safely. Park rangers are known for being helpful and informative caretakers, and we have them to thank for preserving and protecting our pristine natural treasures.

However, some are now finding themselves on the chopping block. In February of 2025, President Trump's slashing of federal funding led to the National Park Service terminating about 1,000 newly hired employees (about 5% of its workforce, which was already understaffed) and the U.S. Forest Service, a close cousin to the National Parks, firing around 3,400 (about 10% of its workforce).

According to the National Parks Service Association (NPCA), the National Parks Service only makes up 3/15 of one percent of the federal budget and every $1 invested by taxpayers creates $15 in economic activity. "Staffing cuts of this magnitude will have devastating consequences for parks and communities,” said NPCA president Theresa Pierno in a statement.

One of the National Parks Service employees who was let go was Education Park Ranger Brian Gibbs. In a heartfelt Facebook post, he shared his sudden termination on Valentine's Day. He wrote:

"I am absolutely heartbroken and completely devastated to have lost my dream job of an Education Park Ranger with the National Park Service this Valentine’s Day.

Access to my government email was denied mid-afternoon and my position was ripped out from out under my feet after my shift was over at 3:45pm on a cold snowy Friday. Additionally, before I could fully print off my government records, I was also locked out of my electronic personal file that contained my secure professional records.

Please know and share this truth widely:

I am a father, a loving husband, and dedicated civil servant.

I am an oath of office to defend and protect the constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic.

I am a work evaluation that reads 'exceeds expectations.'

I am the 'fat on the bone.'

I am being trimmed as a consequence of the popular vote.

I am a United States flag raiser and folder.

I am my son's 'Junior Ranger' idol.

I am of the place where I first told my spouse I loved her.

I am a college kid’s dream job.

I am the smiling face that greets you at the front door.

I am your family vacation plannerI am a voice for 19 American Indian cultures.

I am the protector of 2500 year old American Indian burial and ceremonial mounds.

I am the defender of your public lands and waters.

I am the motivation to make it up the hill.

I am a generational cycle breaker.

I am the toilet scrubber and soap dispenser.

I am the open trail hiked by people from all walks of life.

I am the highlight of your child’s school day.

I am the band aid for a skinned knee.

I am the lesson that showed your children that we live in a world of gifts- not commodities, that gratitude and reciprocity are the doorway to true abundance, not power, money, or fear.

I am the one who taught your kid the thrush’s song and the hawk’s cry.

I am the wildflower that brought your student joy.

I am the one who told your child that they belong on this planet. That their unique gifts and existence matters.

I am an invocation for peace.

I am gone from the office.

I am the resistance.

But mostly I'm just tired.I am tired from weeks of being bullied and censored by billionaires.

I am tired of waking up every morning at 2am wondering how I am going to provide for my family if I lose my job.

I am tired of wiping away my wife’s tears and reassuring her that things will be ok for us and our growing little family that she's carrying.

Things are not ok. I am not ok. (This is the second time in under five years a dream job I worked has been eliminated. Now I may need to uproot my FAMILY again.)

Stay present, don't avert your gaze.

Until our paths cross down the trail,

Fare thee well.

Ranger Brian"

Gibbs' post has been shared nearly 230,000 times, with people both moved and incensed by it. Even people who are supportive of budget cuts don't want to see the National Parks system affected, and people are taking to social media to share their support and appreciation for park rangers.

"A park ranger in Mt. Rainier one time saw me walking around with my camera & stopped me & was like “okay so if you want my favorite picture in the park go to [this place] at [this time] & you’ll see what I think is the most scenic place”Park rangers are just the best & most helpful/passionate people & having less of them will have so many negative effects." – amanda_wanders

"Asked a park ranger in Olympic last summer how early to get to the Hoh Rainforest area the next morning to avoid lines and he told us 7am, several hours before we had planned to arrive. That advice saved hours of waiting. Very grateful for all our park rangers." – jweiss

"All this. They really love their area, love talking about it, and want you to appreciate it like they do. Rangers can give you accurate estimations of time and difficulty of treks, advise you of any current wildlife concerns, and provide superb 'locals' info." –walton.cate

"They are! I'm especially fond of Yellowstone NPS rangers who are often with me when I'm photographing grizzlies and black bears. They are the nicest people!" – nwyetiphotography

"We went to Yellowstone in October, I wanted a good geology book to understand what I was looking at. The ranger at the store told us to get out now, go down the path and watch the geyser (Steamboat, the biggest geyser imaginable!), then come back and he’d sell me any book I wanted - but first go see this and enjoy! What a cool guy, and it was totally amazing! The whole park was splendid- wildlife, beautiful views, cool rock formations, perfect." – crumples

"So many wonderful encounters. We hiked into and out of King's Canyon from a remote entrance/exit but planned a small part of our trip on the busy JMT. When the ranger heard our route he said, 'Let me tell you where my wife and I camp,' at Evolution Lake. Absolutely prime spot with an amazing view away from the crowds." – sonjmarie

"I'm about 5000 hours in volunteering for NPS / BLM / FS, and let me tell you a LOT of the people who come to the parks would be lost without advice from Rangers - which is totally fair, it can be a lot to take in, better to ask a local and we live in the park." – rangerdanger_2012

Park rangers are the underappreciated heroes of our public lands. Their jobs are vital and their contributions deserve to be recognized and honored. If you agree, contact your representatives in Congress and make your voice heard.

From Your Site Articles

national parks

Politics

My Gen Z teen's reaction to the debate between John McCain and Barack Obama was shocking

"Why were they so nice to each other?"

John-Mccain-Barack-Obama | Pimkie | Flickr

My Gen Zer's reaction to the McCain/Obama debate was shocking

Gen Z is a very politically aware generation, though many of them are still in high school they keep up with the political landscape of the world. There are many Gen Z political and social movements as well as official organizations fully run by these young people. Given how politically active Gen Z is, sometimes it's easy to forget they weren't old enough to be politically conscious when Barack Obama was running for president. It wasn't that long ago but some people, it's already history.

Their exposure to politics came to be in some pretty harsh and polarizing times where they were often at the center of the discussion. For many of the older Gen Zers, they felt thrusted into the political sphere to fight for gun reform whether they were ready or not.

Because politics has never been off limits, and I encourage them to research policies to form their own opinions, I hadn't realized there was something missing. Just like nearly every geriatric Millennial I waste a good amount of time scrolling through TikTok while doing mundane chores. But this time my 16-year-old was watching over my shoulder. I was stopped on a video clip of John McCain and Barack Obama's presidential debate in 2008, which happens the be the year my 16-year-old was born.

After a brief comment about how young former President Obama looked in the clip, my child asked, " who is that guy," pointing to McCain, "and why were they so nice to each other?" Admittedly I was baffled by the question and sought clarification to which they explained, "If the old guy is a Republican and Obama's a Democrat then why are they just talking like normal people? If politicians could talk like that we would probably get a lot more stuff done."

We both left the video shocked for very different reasons. It was then that I realized my kid's only conscious exposure to American politics was post-2016. It was hard for them to comprehend that politicians being cordial and respectful toward each other was normal prior to the end of Obama's second term. Of course there were cheap shots taken here or there but they didn't consistently devolve into the shouting matches Gen Z has become accustomed to witnessing by our elected officials.

Joe Biden GIF by PBS NewsHourGiphy

My child couldn't quite understand how American politicians went from being able to have respectful conversations while disagreeing to shouting slurs on the House floor. They were equally as taken aback by the content of the conversations the two men were having noting that they were actually talking about political differences on how to help people and they both seemed to "actually care." In the short three-minute video both men were calm, respectful and didn't attempt to shout over one another. They followed the rules of the debate while still countering each other's stance on issues that impact the daily life of Americans.

McCain and Obama's mutual respect wasn't something that was just for the cameras. While they disagreed on a lot of things politically, they both understood that they had different approaches to doing the same job: caring for Americans. The political opponents weren't waiting for an opportunity to make the other look bad publicly, they saw each other has human first and politician second which is why it wasn't surprising that Obama delivered McCain's eulogy after he lost his battle with cancer.

As an adult that has been voting since George W. Bush ran for president, I was familiar with the normalcy of healthy cordial debates, my kid on the other hand was convinced that this debate was an anomaly. That's when we watched another video of McCain defending Obama at a town hall to solidify how normal it was. Their disbelief of political decorum and their categorization of "red bad, blue good" based on videos coming from our political leaders was a glaring condemnation of what American politics has morphed into.

People pick a political party like they're picking a sports team and have become accustomed to seeing them speak to each other in a way that wouldn't fly in any middle school in the country. This political devolvement has trickled down onto the American people and the younger generation is consuming this via social media as "normal." If this is our normal now then how far will we devolve before the pendulum swings back in the other direction? Is it too late to require better behavior from our politicians so we can course correct before the youngest Gen Zers are of voting age?

Though my child and I had very different reasons for our mutual shock after watching that video, I certainly agree with them. If politicians spent more time speaking to each other with respect and actually taking time to listen to the points made by their counterpart, we would have a much better outcome. Politicians are meant to compromise to find the best solution for all Americans, not just the loudest but that can't be done without listening to understand and treating your colleagues with respect.

From Your Site Articles

american politics

Politics

People are shared the one American non-president they’d add to Mount Rushmore

Who would you choose?

via Wikimedia Commons

Mount Rushmore National Memorial in South Dakota.

Sculptor Gutzon Borglum designed the Mount Rushmore National Memorial and oversaw the project's execution from 1927 to 1941. The sculptor also chose the four presidents who are carved into granite on the mountain’s face. He selected the four presidents to represent the nation's birth (George Washington), growth (Thomas Jefferson), development (Theodore Roosevelt) and preservation (Abraham Lincoln).

Since the faces on Mount Rushmore were first chiseled into granite there have been debates over which presidents also deserve to be on the monument. Two years ago, then-President Donald Trump floated the idea that he deserved to have his face carved in granite.

A Reddit user posed an interesting question to the online forum about the famous monument and it sparked a great conversation. “You get to add another American to Mt. Rushmore but it can’t be a president. Who do you choose?”

That’s a tough question to answer but a fun one to ponder. What criteria does one use to choose the greatest American that ever lived who wasn’t a president? More than 545 million people have lived in the country over the past 244 years. How do we choose one?

Do you select someone from the world of sports, science, the arts, literature, civil rights, religion, military or healthcare? What about someone who performed a heroic deed?

To rank the responses on the Reddit post, I looked at the number of upvotes each suggestion received and then ranked them. It’s not the most scientific way of doing things but it gives us a pretty good idea about who people think should make it to the monument.

Here are the top 20 most popular responses to the burning question: “Which non-president should be added to Mount Rushmore?”

1.

"Dr. Jonas Salk. Saved us all from polio." — Barefoot_Alvin

2.

"There is already a non-president on Mt. Rushmore. John Cena." — zoqforpik

The Reddit user is clearly referencing the wrestler's catchphrase.

3.

"Dolly Parton." — Airos42

4.

"Mr. Rogers." — PitchforkJoe

5.

"Mark Twain. The quintessential American writer. We always put up statues of military and politicians across this country. It would be nice to see more of our creative side get honored. Put up Poe on the mountain. Attract goths to the site." — inksmudgedhands

6.

"Martin Luther King Jr." — bahamuto

7.

"How is Nicolas Cage not here yet?" — deus_vult

8.

"John Wilkes Booth but he's further back behind Lincoln." — Jakovosol0

9.

"Benjamin Franklin." — FinnbarMcBride

10.

"Sacagawea." — bivalve_connisseur

11.

"Homer Simpson." — EonClaw

12.

"Bob Ross." — j-oats

13.

"Weird Al." — OntarioLakeside

14.

"Frederick Douglass." — kade22

15.

"Betty White." — Diatrial

16.

The person who started the thread chimed in with their nominee.

"Neil Armstrong would be my number one." — taint_licking_clown

17.

"Harriet Tubman." — 44cksSake

18.

"Ronnie James Dio!" — kevinthegeek21

19.

"Maria Darlene Pearson or Hai-Mecha Eunka (lit. 'Running Moccasins') (July 12, 1932 – May 23, 2003) was an activist who successfully challenged the legal treatment of Native American human remains. A member of the Turtle Clan of the Yankton Sioux which is a federally recognized tribe of Yankton Dakota, she was one of the primary catalysts for the creation of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). Her actions led to her being called 'the Founding Mother of the modern Indian repatriation movement' and 'the Rosa Parks of NAGPRA." — CTeam19

20.

"Danny DeVito." — distantshadow

This article originally appeared three years ago.

From Your Site Articles

american history

Democracy

Fox News viewers changed their minds after getting paid to watch CNN for a month

Some hope we can bridge the political divide.

Greg Gutfeld and Anderson Cooper images via Wikicommons

Fox viewers changed their minds after watching CNN

The prevailing logic in today’s political world is that polarization is worsening because people live in media echo chambers where they are only exposed to outlets that mirror their views.

People who live in echo chambers come to distrust any opinions that exist outside of their bubbles and when they're not exposed to any conflicting information. This creates a scenario where the person becomes increasingly entrenched in their worldview.

One would assume that after a person becomes fully entrenched in an echo chamber they have little chance of changing their views. However, a new working paper by researchers at Stanford and Yale universities has found that when people are removed from their bubbles there’s a chance they’ll change their minds.

David Broockman of Stanford and Joshua Kalla of Yale conducted a study in 2022 where they paid regular Fox News viewers $15 an hour to watch CNN for around seven hours a week for a month. The researchers then surveyed them about their political beliefs and knowledge of current events.

The study is titled “The manifold effects of partisan media on viewers’ beliefs and attitudes: A field experiment with Fox News viewers.” The research was done in fall 2020, during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic and lead-up to the presidential election.

When the participants were polled, researchers found that they were 5 percentage points more likely to believe that people suffer from long COVID, 6 points more likely to believe that other countries did a better job of controlling the virus and 7 points more likely to support voting by mail.

“CNN provided extensive coverage of COVID-19, which included information about the severity of the COVID-19 crisis and poor aspects of Trump’s performance handling COVID-19. Fox News covered COVID-19 much less,” said the study.

After the Fox viewers switched to CNN, it changed their opinions on the social justice protests happening at the time as well. The switchers were 10 points less likely to think that Biden supporters were happy when police got shot and 13 points less likely to believe that if Biden gets elected “we’ll see many more police get shot by Black Lives Matter activists.”

Many of the participants also realized that when it came to Trump, they weren’t getting the whole story. After switching to a steady diet of CNN they were less likely to agree that “if Donald Trump did something bad, Fox News would discuss it.”

“Despite regular Fox viewers being largely strong partisans, we found manifold effects of changing the slant of their media diets on their factual beliefs, attitudes, perceptions of issues’ importance, and overall political views,” the authors of the study said.

The study shows that Fox News isn’t just a media outlet that affirms its viewers' worldviews, it also feeds them a distorted version of reality that pushes them toward more extreme opinions. The good news is that some of these people can be changed when exposed to better information.

It should also be noted that Fox News viewers aren’t the only ones living in information bubbles and that there are plenty of ideological traps that ensnare people on the left as well.

The study should give everyone hope that all is not lost and that America’s political divide may not be impossible to bridge.

This article originally appeared two years ago.

From Your Site Articles

politics

Justice

Why the "MAGA Granny" convicted for her role in the Capitol riots rejected Trump's pardon

She's taking a stand that everyone should pay attention to.

Images via Facebook

Pamela Hemphill, formerly known as the "MAGA Granny"

Mere hours into his second term, President Trump signed an executive order granting clemency to roughly 1,500 people charged with offenses related to the Capitol riots and protests on January 6th, 2021. But one woman who went to jail for her role is refusing the pardon, saying none should have been issued at all.

Pamela Hemphill, formerly dubbed "MAGA Granny" on social media, pleaded guilty to parading, demonstrating, or picketing in a Capitol building in 2022. She received a 60-day sentence, 36 months of probation, and an order to pay $500 restitution. "We were wrong that day," Hemphill told the BBC, adding that "[a]ccepting a pardon would only insult the Capitol police officers, rule of law and, of course, our nation." She continued, "I pleaded guilty because I was guilty, and accepting a pardon also would serve to contribute to their gaslighting and false narrative."

In a recent USA Today feature, Hemphill opened up about her change in perspective since January 6th, which she called “the worst day in our history."

- YouTubewww.youtube.com

Many current Republicans support Trump but oppose the blanket pardons. The Fraternal Order of Police, the nation's largest police union, and the International Association of Chiefs of Police, issued a joint statement denouncing the move, saying they "firmly believe" that anyone "convicted of killing or assaulting law enforcement officers" should be forced to "serve their full sentences."

"When perpetrators of crimes, especially serious crimes, are not held fully accountable, it sends a dangerous message that the consequences for attacking law enforcement are not severe, potentially emboldening others to commit similar acts of violence," the note continues.

Several Republican senators also took issue with the pardons, including North Carolina's Thom Tillis, who was surprised by their scope. "I just can’t agree,” he said. “I’m about to file two bills that will increase the penalties up to and including the death penalty for the murder of a police officer and increasing the penalties and creating federal crimes for assaulting a police officer—that should give you everything you need to know about my position.”

In their statement, the Fraternal Order of Police and the International Association of Chiefs of Police criticized Trump's predecessor for the same reasons. In one of his final acts in office, President Biden commuted the life sentence of Indigenous activist Leonard Peltier, who was convicted of killing two FBI agents in 1975. (Peltier, 80, will serve the rest of his sentence at home.) Biden, like Trump, also faced pushback from members of his own party—in this case, for using pardons for family and government employees who haven't been charged with crimes.

- YouTubewww.youtube.com

"We need to make a critique of some of the more unjust pardons, like the January 6 pardons," said Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine, of Virginia. "And I think it’s harder to make that critique, to stand on the high ground and make a critique of the Trump pardons on January 6 when President Biden is pardoning family members.” Democratic Rep. Jared Moskowitz of Florida told CBS News, "I'm not a fan of these pardons. I wish he didn't feel that he needed to do that. ... Now the precedent is set, from now into the future."

Political division is inescapable—seemingly more now than ever. But by taking a stand, Hemphill has set a unique and powerful precedent for people on both sides of the aisle. It takes courage to stand for one's principles, even when doing the opposite would benefit them personally.

From Your Site Articles

politics

Politics

Great news: The U.S. government changed its approach to homeless veterans and the results are stunning

The number of unhoused veterans has decreased by 55.6% since 2010.

Photo credit: Canva

Three government agencies are ensuring that veterans have a home to go to.

A new report from the U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs (VA), the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH) is showing promising news. Due to hard work and investing in housing initiatives, the number of unhoused veterans has decreased by 7.5% since 2023 and 55.6% overall since 2010!

Veteran homelessness has been a growing concern for decades. Since 2009, the three agencies have been monitoring the situation using an annual Point-In-Time (PIT) count to gauge the issue. The PIT Count is a yearly count of the sheltered and unsheltered people who are unhoused within a single night in January. The data collected in 2024 showed that 32,882 veterans experienced homelessness, of which 13,851 were completely unsheltered. These results are lower from 2023’s data, in which 35,574 veterans were unhoused in total and 15,507 were without any shelter period.

The number of unhoused veterans has lowered by 55.6% since 2010.Photo credit: Canva

The VA credits the Biden-Harris Administration’s investment in specific “Housing First” programs aimed toward unhoused veterans along with HUD and USICH initiatives to combat homelessness in general. Some of these initiatives include $800 million worth of grants given to unhoused and at-risk veterans and policy changes within HUD that allowed veterans easier, less expensive access to housing.

“This data shows that with the right investments in housing and health care, and with strong leadership and coordination across government, homelessness is solvable,” said USICH Director Jeff Olivet in a press release.

“Today, thanks to interagency efforts by the entire Biden-Harris Administration and our partners on the ground, we are proud to announce a significant decline in Veteran homelessness this year,” said HUD Deputy Secretary Adrianne Todman.

The VA, USICH, and HUD are helping more veterans gain access to housing.Photo credit: Canva

While this is certainly great news of progress, homelessness is still an issue in the United States. While there were only 32,882 unhoused veterans recorded in 2024, that is still a large number of human beings that require homes. And that’s just unhoused veterans, not the entire homeless population.

According to a report by the National Alliance to End Homelessness, there is still a lot of work to be done. From 2019-2023, the number of people who entered an emergency shelter for the first time increased more than 23 percent. A vast number of factors create unhoused people, from economic hardship to drug addiction to mental illness. There are also incidents and natural disasters that make a person unhoused overnight such as a wild fire or a hurricane.

So what is the solution? Well, to Thomas Byrne, a professor of social work at Boson University, the answer is simple. To quote a phrase he heard from a head of a homeless services agency, “The solution to the problem is in the name of the problem.” In other words, to help the homeless, we have to just provide them homes.

The key to solving homelessness is literally house keys.Photo credit: Canva

It’s a simple solution that has complex political issues and red tape all around it. But it’s a solution. We only have to work on the “how” now. Fortunately, based on what’s being done for the veterans in this country, the “how” appears to be more and more doable as time, effort, and work is put into it.

From Your Site Articles

homelessness

Democracy

These 27 non-political questions can predict whether you’re a Republican or Democrat

This quiz is fascinating.

Recent polls suggest that Republicans and Democrats have slightly different tastes that have nothing to do with politics.

Americans tend to choose their political party based on a number of factors: family, gender, religion, race and ethnicity, and even region all have a hand in shaping a person's political ideology. Famously, George Washington warned the country against a two-party system in his Farewell Address on September 17, 1796. Our first president cited fears that "partisanship would lead to a 'spirit of revenge' in which party members would not govern for the good of the people, but for power."

Over 220 years later, Washington may have been right, but things aren't as dire as they seem. As reported by CBS News, a recent study by the Pew Research Group found that while a lot does divide us, there's much more that we have in common on average.

In short, a lot goes into where we fall on the political spectrum, but an interesting new quiz from ChartsMe has taken things to the next level. It claims to be 98% effective in determining people's political affiliations by asking questions that—get this—have nothing to do with politics.

Take the quiz here.

So, how does it work? (I recommend you take the quiz before we break down what's going on!)

The quiz uses Jonathan Haidt's Disgust Scale and takes you through a series of questions and scenarios to determine how disgusted certain situations make you. According to ChartsMe, a 2014 study published with the National Library of Medicine (NLM) found that people who were more prone to disgust are more conservative. This leads them to more closely align with the Republican Party. Further research conducted in 2022 bolstered this finding by investigating the "Conservative-Disgust Paradox" in reactions to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Some research disputes this though.

In 2019, the British Psychological Society cited a study that found that levels of disgust between conservatives and liberals are generally the same but highly "context-dependent." In other words, some liberals have higher disgust sensitivity than conservatives and vice versa depending on the topic, image, or idea.

Does what disgusts you define you?

Photo by OSPAN ALI on Unsplash

Overall, it's human to feel disgust. Some scientists believe it's ancestral and that the adverse reactions to conditions we'd label “disgusting" were used to protect primitive ancestors from contamination and disease. According to National Geographic, Charles Darwin proposed that disgust served an evolutionary purpose in the late 1860s. It evolved, he noted, to "prevent our ancestors from eating spoiled food that might kill them." Helpful!

So, maybe being grossed out isn't inherently a conservative or liberal emotion, but the science tells us that what grosses us out and how deeply we're grossed out by it just might indicate our political leanings.

Do you agree with your ChartsMe results? Did they get it right? Either way, I think we can all agree this stuff is pretty neat.

This article originally appeared six years ago.

From Your Site Articles

politics