upworthy

politics

NBC6 & Canva Photos
John Morales stopped his report to educate viewers on what budget cuts really mean.

I will admit that I hardly ever watch the news on television, especially not for the weather. It's just so much easier to pick up my phone and check Google or The Weather Channel. I just want to know how warm it's going to be or how likely it is to rain. These days, I can find that out in about 10 seconds and go about my day.

But when there's potential danger—hurricanes, storms that might knock out the power of topple over trees, tornado warnings, or threats of ice and snow—my trusty local meteorologist or weatherman is always there. All of that said, I've never once considered that I might not be able to get my weather forecast from either source, at least not accurately. It's 2025—our weather modeling should be better than ever, state of the art, right?

John Morales, a meteorologist and hurricane specialist with NBC6 in South Florida, was reporting on an upcoming storm when he suddenly shifted gears, right in the middle of the broadcast.


weatherman, weather, meteorologist, news, tv news, news anchor, viral videos, trump, doge, government Meteorologists play an important role in our communities. Giphy

Morales explains that in his 34 years of presenting the weather, he's always been able to confidently tell his viewers when a hurricane might hit, or when it might turn away. He's always been able to stand behind his data, modeling, and forecast in order to help protect the people of South Florida.

"I am here to tell you that I am not sure I can do that this year."

Why? "Because of the cuts, the gutting, the sledgehammer attack on science in general."

Morales then pulled up a graphic instead of his usual weather map. It laid out some stark realities about severe understaffing of the National Weather Service, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Between brutal layoffs, employees accepting the recent DOGE buyout, and straight-up resignations, the agencies responsible for collecting weather data have lost hundreds and hundreds of valuable experts.

weatherman, weather, meteorologist, news, tv news, news anchor, viral videos, trump, doge, government A weather forecaster is only as good as their data. Photo by Stephen Scarboro on Unsplash

He also explained that due to federal government budget cuts, there's been a sizable decrease in weather balloon launches across the country. Weather balloons are instruments that take crucial measurements of the upper atmosphere and send data that helps with forecasting. With less data available, and lower quality data, Morales say that "the quality of forecasts is becoming degraded."

That's a pretty scary thought, especially in a place like South Florida. What do you do when your local meteorologist can't predict what a powerful hurricane will do next?

"This is a multi-generational impact on science in this country," Morales warns.

Watch his passionate plea here:

Almost nine million people viewed the powerful clip on X. It was reshared over 26,000 times. Morales' message is definitely getting the attention it deserves.

It's not just the National Weather Service that's bleeding. In the name of efficiency, The White House has slashed budgets at the CDC, the National Institutes of Health, and more. Trimming the federal budget sounds well and good until you realize that we won't be making any major cancer breakthroughs any time soon without funding the research. And we won't be able to protect people from hurricanes and tornadoes without complete weather data.

(And yes, even the Weather app on your iPhone needs a database to pull from.)

Meanwhile, we're spending $1 trillion—yes, trillion— per year on our military. This is the anti-science, anti-expert sentiment Morales is talking about. It's been building for years and is just now coming to a head in the worst way.

We still need meteorologists and weather experts like Morales. We still need scientists.

The impact of these cuts is already being felt as hurricane and flooding season hits. John Morales continues to advocate for a science-based approach to weather and public safety. And he's not alone.


ChatGPT can pull weather data from Google and tell you if there's going to be a thunderstorm, but can it tell you when the data behind that forecast is incomplete or unreliable? That's the reality we're facing right now, and we might not know the forecast isn't reliable until it's too late in some cases.

TV weathermen who live in our communities and can put crucial context behind the weather and help keep us safe still matter. Not only that, but they are ambassadors for science, and they still have a big platform in many communities around the country. Morales is making sure he makes the most of his.

This article originally appeared in June. It has been updated.


Political polarization is out of control. It doesn't have to be this way.

What I'm going to share here may well be futile, and many people who need to hear this message and take it to heart probably won't. But America is at a precipice we've been hurtling toward for years, and if we don't do something now to slow the momentum, I fear we'll soon find ourselves plummeting over a proverbial cliff, one and all. It's worth an attempt to pull us back from the brink.

We all know that political polarization in the U.S. is reaching a fever pitch. What many people don't seem to recognize is how they individually play a role in it, especially those who are adamant that the "other side" is to blame for the division. As a lifelong political independent, it's been terrifying to watch my fellow Americans become more and more entrenched in hyper-partisanship, seemingly unaware of how they themselves are contributing to the problem, simply by allowing themselves to be pulled further into the partisan binary.

left, right, politics, partisanship, political ideology We can't divide America into "left" and "right." Photo credit: Canva

Democrats say Republicans are the problem. Republicans say Democrats are the problem. The vast majority of us absentmindedly use black-and-white ideological terminology that line up with our political parties to describe our fellow Americans—liberal or conservative, left or right, red or blue—as if 342 million people fit neatly into two political/ideological boxes. As a result, many Americans have found a home and an identity in those boxes, and unfortunately, some have built them into fortresses from which to shoot at the other side—figuratively and literally.

But no matter how people feel about one box or the other, neither of them is really the problem that brought us here. The problem is the premise that they are built on, which is that there are two opposing sides in the first place. It was inevitable that partisanship in a two-party system would eventually lead to an intractable division featuring extreme, binary thinking pushed by those who benefit from that polarization. The "other side" isn't just different, it's depraved. The “other side" isn't just misguided, it's malicious. The "other side" isn't just wrong, it's evil. This kind of thinking is a feature, not a bug.

george washington, party politics, two-party system, farewell address, partisanship George Washington tried to warn us about the perils of partisanship. Giphy

George Washington tried to warn us about this in 1796 when he said that the "spirit of party" was America's "worst enemy" and would eventually lead us to our demise. We're right there, right now. Partisanship has been fully weaponized by those seeking and wielding power, pitting Americans against Americans, convincing them that the "other side" isn't just wrong, but evil. ("But the other side really is evil!" you might be thinking. Thank you for proving the point. The "other side" says exactly the same thing.) The walls of those political and ideological boxes have gotten so high and so thick that we've lost the ability to see one another's humanity.

Many things have gone into how we got here, of course, and there's plenty of blame to be tossed around. But instead of finger pointing when we talk about our polarization problem, what if we were to look inward and own our own individual part in it, whatever that might be?

I would love to invite every American of every persuasion to take a pause, zoom out, and honestly engage with these self-reflection questions:

Do I tend to label people as liberal/left or conservative/right based on what I know about their beliefs?

Do I assume a certain political party affiliation based on what someone looks like/how they dress/where they live?

Do I describe states and cities as "blue" or "red" and make judgments about those places based on those labels?

Do I use generalized terms like "the left" or "the right" to describe large swaths of the American population?

Does the media I watch or listen to speak in those binary terms? Is one used positively and one used negatively?

politics, political divide, polarization, division, party politics Partisanship is divisive in its very nature.Photo credit: Canva

Do I check multiple sources to find what's true before I react or form an opinion about something I see on social media?

Do I seek out a variety of commentary to genuinely try to understand different perspectives?

Do I contact my legislators when I want to see a change in policy, or do I just argue with people on social media about it?

Do I recognize when people are debating in an effort to seek truth and when they're using rhetorical tricks to "win" an argument?

Am I spending more time engaging with people online than I am in real life?

Do I pay more attention to the extreme voices on the political spectrum than to the moderate ones?

Am I aware of how social media algorithms affect what I see and am exposed to?

Do I see how the extreme element of the "side" I most align with is being used to paint my political persuasion in a negative light?

Do I see how the same thing is being done with the extreme element on the other "side"?

Do I acknowledge when someone from my "side" shares misinformation? Do I call it out?

misinformation, b.s., fake news, falsehood, calling out There''s b.s. all over the political spectrum. Giphy

Do I think of a large portion of my fellow Americans as enemies or adversaries? Why do I view them that way?

Do I want to see my fellow Americans as enemies or adversaries? How can I see them differently?

Am I suggesting we stop using labels like left/right, liberal/conservative, etc. altogether? As much as possible, yes. These labels barely help us understand one another anymore—most often they are used to stereotype people or to take one person's objectionable action and ascribe it to the entire "side." So much of our current situation is a result of the extreme generalization of Americans into two groups, when in reality, very few people actually think, believe, live, and act within the confines of however those group labels are defined. Most of us know this intellectually, of course, but it's so easy to be pulled by language to one extreme or the other in a polarized political climate, especially via social media.

That polarization is purposeful, by the way. Giving people a political identity and an "other side" to fight against is one of the easiest ways to gain political power. Unfortunately, it's also playing with fire. (And if you think only one party does it, think again. It's just much easier to spot when it's done by people we disagree with.)

We can't solve our problems using the same means by which they were created. We can't change the politics that weaponizes partisanship if we ourselves are furthering and fueling it with partisanized thinking and rhetoric. We can't respond to political and ideological extremism with more extremism, even if we think our extremism is justified. Literally every extremist thinks their extremism is justified. Black-and-white, us vs. them thinking is extremism. It's becoming so common, we're getting numb to it.

None of us is immune here—this stuff is designed to tap our most primal instincts—but we have to fight it in ourselves. When we feel a push or pull toward binary extremes (which is easily mistaken for believing we're on the righteous side of things) we can consciously pull ourselves back to a place where we see one another's humanity before everything else.

I'm not both-sidesing here or implying that there aren't any legitimate issues with any particular party/side/ideology. What I'm saying is that partisanized discourse has become a zero sum game and too many Americans are willingly being used as pawns in it. While we can't control what other people do, we can reflect on the part we as individuals play and dedicate ourselves to being part of the solution instead of contributing to the problem.

Of course, stepping away from political labels and partisanzied discourse won't instantly solve all of our issues as a nation. But if enough Americans refuse to play the partisan game and reject the binary rhetoric of left/right, liberal/conservative, red/blue, Democrat/Republican, perhaps we can help prevent the U.S. from plunging into the dark, dangerous chasm we've found ourselves at the brink of.

It's worth a shot, at least.

Celebrity

'The Pitt' star Noah Wyle gives a refreshingly nuanced take on celebrity activism

"I'm as wary of the well-intentioned liberal as I am of anyone else."

Alan Light (left), Office of Representative Clark/Public Domain (right)

Noah Wyle has been doing healthcare advocacy work for nearly three decades.

Hollywood has a long history of celebrities using their fame to advocate for causes that are important to them. However, as social justice issues have become increasingly entwined with partisan politics, advocacy and activism have become more fraught with pitfalls. Aligning yourself with a particular issue quickly gets you slapped with ideological and political labels that may or may not reflect where you stand, and those labels themselves may earn you praise or condemnation you may or may not deserve.

And, frankly, people are tired of it. At least, the celebrities talking about politics part of it. On the flip side, famous people often feel pressure to take a public stand, to use their platform to speak out for or against various causes and concerns, only to then face criticism from all sides over how their platform is being used, whether they're doing enough to too much, and whether what they're doing is being done in the right or wrong way.

noah wyle, celebrity, activism, advocacy, social justice work People are often skeptical of celebrity activism. Giphy

Perhaps that's why actor Noah Wyle's thoughts on celebrity activism feels like such a breath of fresh air. The ER alum and current star of the critically acclaimed medical drama The Pitt sat down with Life Stories and shared his approach to advocacy work, offering a refreshingly nuanced take. Wyle started working with Doctors of The World (similar to Doctors Without Borders but focused on longer-term, sustainable medical care) during his ER days in the late 1990s and has been a staunch advocate of better working conditions and mental health care for healthcare workers.

In his Life Stories interview, Wyle was asked to speak on celebrity advocacy: "There is a conflict sometimes about whether actors should speak out and should be listened to, and God knows there's sometimes backlash to that, particularly in politics…can you talk about that for a sec, the dichotomy?"

@backonmybullsht1

Noah Wyle talking about using his voice as a celebrity for advocacy. He is so intelligent and compassionate. Today (8/27) is the last day of Emmy voting. Please vote for Noah Wyle and the Pitt! Full interview on the Thread YouTube channel. #noahwyle #thepitt #activism #celebrity #fyp

His response rejected the notion of simplifying people and issues into binary camps and categories.

"At the risk of offending, you know, I'm as wary of the well-intentioned liberal as I am of anybody else," he replied. "You know, the world's a complicated place, and I've worked with some people I really don't like very much to do some very noble work, and I've worked with some people I really love and wish they did more…You can't divide this up evenly among populations."

"Yes, there's a blowback to being a Hollywood personality that gives a sh__ about the world," he continued, "because your argument is so easily relegated to being that of a 'woke Hollywood commie liberal' you know, whatever. We have a population of people that have been consistently very active on social justice, and the people that don't like it when we speak out try to marginalize our voice and say it's a privileged class speaking out of its depth. And sometimes that's true. And sometimes it's just propaganda talking point."

obama, woke, joke, liberal, activism Obama makes a woke joke. Giphy

Ah, nuance. Gosh, it's nice to see you. Wyle went on to explain how he handles the blowback.

"In my particular case, I try to combat it by being as articulate and as learned on the subject I'm speaking about as possible, so that when somebody wants to debate me, they get everything I know to establish my credibility or validity."

How about that. Knowledge, facts, expertise. Beautiful. Then he adds another layer of awesome.

"But also, the older I get I give less of a sh__ about having to defend my point of view against people who would make that argument. I'm trying to get to substance, right? I'm trying to get past those levels of infighting and squabbling to see where are our commonalities and where we can fix this stuff."

(Excuse me, I'm just going to read that last bit a few more times before we move on.)

woke, activism, journalism, celebrity, opinions Late Show The Mooch GIF by The Late Show With Stephen Colbert Giphy

"So it's a blessing and a curse," Wyle continued. "Yes, you're giving them a microphone, and with it comes the weird optics of who you represent when you speak, but like we've already discussed, whether it's Mike Ferrell or James Cromwell or Martin Sheen or Marlon Brando or you know, you go back Paul Newman, there were people that had been walking and marching and fighting for social justice going back to the beginning of our industry. And I would rather count myself in those ranks."

Speaking of older celebrities, Tony Bennett, Harry Belafonte, and other famous faces helped bring the media's attention to the civil rights activism of Martin Luther King, Jr., but as Wyle pointed out, their actions were not just putting a face on a cause.

march on selma, martin luther king, MLK, tony bennett, activism March on Selma, 1965 Giphy

"When the cameras were off, Tony Bennett was doing concerts for people, for free, on the March on Selma. You know, people have shown up. They've shown up when the cameras were on, and they showed up when the cameras were off. It's just easier to make fun of them when the cameras are on," he said.

It's a good reminder not to label someone as "performative" unless we know for sure what they're doing for causes when the cameras are off. Sure, some celebrity advocacy is done for branding and PR's sake only, but many famous people are just people who happened to get famous. Noah Wyle's interview is a good reminder not to lump celebrities all together and discount the good work they do in the world simply because they're a part of Hollywood, and to focus on where people can find common ground in doing that work.

You can watch the whole Life Stories interview here:

- YouTube www.youtube.com