Chicago volunteers unite for Earth Day cleanup in Humboldt Park
CHICAGO – Local groups are keeping the Earth Day message alive going into the spring.
While Saturday's temperatures were only in the 40s, they didn't stop volunteers' efforts during an Earth Day cleanup in Humboldt Park.
'For over 40 years, residents have come together to clean up our parks to ensure that they are safe and healthy and accessible for visitors and, of course, the entire community,' Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson said.
Americans began celebrating Earth Day in April of 1970 to raise awareness about the importance of protecting the environment.
That awareness has now gone global and Earth Day is now observed in nearly 200 countries.
Read more: Latest Chicago news and headlines
'The EPA was created because of activism. Earth Day was created because people said, 'We have to be active and we have to promote environmentalism. We have to promote the natural habitat and being good stewards of the natural habitat.' So we're continuing that heritage and that tradition here in the City of Chicago,' Chicago Park Superintendent Carlos Ramirez-Rosa said.
This year's cleanup in Humboldt Park was the biggest one yet for the Chicago Park District and the organization Friends of the Parks, who both recruited over 2,000 volunteers – a record number.
'We use this park all the time, so we want to make sure that we take care of it and preserve it for future generations, and as a parent, I mean I think about my kids being able to use this park and enjoy it in the same way that I do,' volunteer Elizabeth Reynolds said. 'I'm hoping to teach my kids that this is important and to take care of the Earth as much as we can.'
Those volunteers spent hours sprucing up 150 parks.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Atlantic
2 hours ago
- Atlantic
The Art of Self-Control in the Face of Provocation
Want to stay current with Arthur's writing? Sign up to get an email every time a new column comes out. Unless you inhabit a hermit cave with no internet access, you'll know that we live in the Age of Offense. With high levels of polarization and innumerable ways to broadcast one's every thought to strangers far and wide, it is easier than ever to lob insults and to denigrate ideological foes. Not surprisingly, according to a 2024 Pew Research Center study, 47 percent of Americans believe that people saying things that are 'very offensive' to others is a major problem in the country today, whereas only 11 percent say it is not a problem. (The remainder says it is a minor problem.) You might conclude that the solution is for people to stop offending others—good luck with that!—but consider another statistic in the same poll: A larger percentage of Americans (62 percent) says another big problem is 'people being too easily offended by things others say.' These are not at all mutually exclusive findings; they suggest that we are simultaneously too offensive and too thin-skinned. The second issue, however, is the one on which I wish to focus, because, for most people, being too easily offended is worse for one's own quality of life than being obnoxiously rude. So instead of spending your efforts trying to stamp out what you find offensive, you should work on being less offended in the first place. Arthur C. Brooks: The bliss of a quieter ego The foundational study on the psychology of taking offense—one still frequently cited today—was written in 1976 by the psychologist Wolfgang Zander. He argued that we get offended in three stages: First, we identify when we're insulted or harshly contradicted; second, we assess how extreme the offense is; finally, we respond emotionally or in some behavioral way. Say, for example, a colleague at work says in a meeting, in front of your boss, that your latest proposal is stupid. You identify this as a contradiction of your ideas; you assess this as mildly annoying; you decide to register your unhappiness in an appropriate manner with your colleague after the meeting. I chose this example because research has found that such a negative judgment from another person is precisely what we typically deem most offensive. Scholars in 2018 showed in a survey of 129 people that 73 percent of cases of offense-taking was for threats to dominance or competence. The other 27 percent of instances related to attacks on goodwill or appearance. This reminded me that someone on social media once called me a bald guy who writes bad columns. The first part reminded me of something I don't love, but it didn't offend me—hey, the truth is the truth—but the second part stung a little. People react to offenses in different ways. That same study found that women, when offended, are more likely than men to experience sadness and bitterness, whereas men are more likely to experience pride (manifested as indignation) and anger. Another study found that when an offense is highly hurtful, the most common reaction is acquiescence, which might involve tearfulness or even apologizing. When an offense is less hurtful, the most common reaction is to laugh or ignore it. However we react, our response can be less under our conscious control than is perhaps implied by the example that I gave of Zander's three-stage process. That's because an offense triggers parts of our ancient brain, notably the limbic system, which indicates a threat. The workings of this strong primal structure raise the possibility of more-drastic action: fighting, verbally or physically. Here, too, reactions differ by gender. Males are more likely than females to respond to an offense with aggression, including violence. Fortunately, this outcome is unusual for either sex because the brain's executive center—the prefrontal cortex—inhibits the amygdala's fight response. The way this works in practice is that when someone says something offensive, you initially feel furious (limbic system), but then you tell yourself Don't freak out (prefrontal cortex), and you manage to act calmly. As you may have noticed, some people exhibit more effective inhibition than others. Scholars have shown that the likelihood of a violent response to an offense is far higher among people with substance-use disorders—especially when that condition is paired with mental illness. By the same token, men convicted of violent crimes have been shown to have weaker-than-average connectivity between the amygdala and prefrontal cortex when they face a personal insult. The point of describing the neurological and psychological mechanisms that underpin taking offense is that knowledge is power. If you know what's happening to you when you feel offended, that's the first step toward controlling how you respond. Arthur C. Brooks: The beauty that moral courage creates Naturally, life is happier if you're not being offended. One strategy is to try avoiding anyone who might offend you and put up barriers against any exposure to them. If this involves curating your friendships to shun someone who's liable to hurt your feelings repeatedly, that's fine. But if taking measures against being offended means shutting down free speech on your college campus, that is less likely to go well for you or serve your purpose. Those techniques involve trying to control your environment, but the more you try to expand the scope of that control, the less effective and the more costly it will become for you and others. Better by far to control yourself —by learning to be less offended. The studies I mentioned above suggest several strategies to do just that and help you live more happily as a result. 1. Laugh it off. Remember that when an offense is not grave, the most common reaction is to ignore it or laugh. This is a very good option because it makes you the judge of how severe the offense is, rather than cede that judgment to some outside arbitrator. You don't have to laugh in a defiant, bitter way; on the contrary, you can usually effectively neutralize another's jab with self-deprecating humor. (I'm bald? Tough but fair.) Doing so can actually raise your self-esteem. Scholars have also shown that, especially if you are a team leader, this kind of joke can actually increase others' trust in you and boost their perception of your effectiveness. You can imagine how this could work in business or in sports, but you can use the same tactic to maintain your position in other situations. 2. Use your prefrontal cortex. I teach my business-school students that the most important management job they have is self -management—to understand their emotions and act independently of them. Admittedly, this skill is harder for some people than others, but we can all improve with determination and practice. Many techniques for activating your brain's executive center exist: prayer, journaling, meditation. If you're facing an interaction with a troublesome person, I'd recommend reading this passage from the Stoic classic Meditations, by Marcus Aurelius: It is the privilege of human nature to love those that disoblige us. To practice this, you must consider that the offending party is of kin to you, that ignorance is the cause of the misbehavior, and the fault is involuntary, that you will both of you quickly be in your graves; but especially consider that you have received no harm by the injury, for your mind is never the worse for it. 3. Tune out the offense-making machines. You can't eliminate all offense from your life, but you certainly don't have to go looking for it. Yet that is effectively what you're doing when you consume a lot of controversial, limbic-system-triggering media content. If you are spending an inordinate amount of time reading political opinions or watching cable-news talking heads, for example, you are probably outraged constantly—even more so if you are very online as well. One way to feel less aggrieved about what other people are saying or posting is simply to cut all that out of your life: Turn off the TV; delete the app. Arthur C. Brooks: A defense against gaslighting sociopaths One more aspect of offense-taking is worth considering, especially in today's contentious ideological environment. A novel recent experiment tested participants for whether they were more prosocial or more pro-self (a way to test for narcissistic tendencies). The researchers then randomly administered electric shocks to 5 percent of participants, and offered a monetary reward to those who got one. Payment was on the honor system, though, so the researchers paid up when participants said they'd received a shock, whether it was true or not. The high pro-self participants were by far the most likely to lie, saying they'd been shocked when they hadn't, and take the money. Surprising, right? Not really. Scholars have noted that people with a 'proclivity to be offended' tend to be poor performers at work and prone to all kinds of counterproductive behavior. Such prickly people are very likely to be narcissists, because their offense-taking is driven by an overweening sense of entitlement and an unwillingness to overlook any sleight; they may even feign being offended— shocked, even—to gain advantage. So, of course, you should be sensitive and empathetic if you see others being harmed around you. But especially when the hurt is nothing more than a speech act, also consider that being offended may not be reliable evidence of true offensiveness. It might instead be evidence that a person who claims to be offended is not acting in good faith.
Newsweek
5 hours ago
- Newsweek
Birth Rates: Most US Women Still Want Kids, but Half Aren't Sure They Can
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. As U.S. birth rates continue to fall to historic lows, a new study reveals the complex and uncertain reality behind Americans' family planning decisions—particularly among women who say they want children. Roughly half of women who intend to have children are unsure whether they'll ever follow through, and many say they won't be especially upset if they don't, according to new research published in the journal Genus. "People's feelings about having children are complicated, and we found there are a lot of nuances," said Sarah Hayford, co-author of the study and professor of sociology at The Ohio State University. "It suggests that there is no simple answer to the declining birth rate in the United States." Cropped shot of an unrecognizable mother to be standing in her living room at home. Cropped shot of an unrecognizable mother to be standing in her living room at home. PeopleImages Using nearly two decades of data from the National Survey of Family Growth, researchers analyzed responses from more than 41,000 women aged from15–44. The study, led by Ohio State PhD student Luca Badolato, found that while 62 percent of women consistently said they intended to have children, up to 50 percent of those respondents were only "somewhat sure" or "not at all sure" they would actually do so. That uncertainty may be shaping the nation's fertility rate more than previously understood. After peaking at 2.12 children per woman in 2007, the U.S. fertility rate has steadily declined, reaching 1.62 in 2023—well below the replacement level of 2.1. Much of the public debate has focused on structural factors like childcare costs, work-life balance and economic insecurity. But this new research suggests that internal factors—how strongly women feel about having children and how certain they are in that desire—are equally important. Even among those who say they want children, the strength of that desire appears to be waning. One-quarter of childless women who said they intended to become mothers also reported that they wouldn't be bothered if they never had children. Young women felt this ambivalence strongly, and it has increased over time. "They are open to different pathways and different kinds of lives," said Hayford, who also directs Ohio State's Institute for Population Research. "If they don't become parents for whatever reason, it doesn't seem that upsetting to many of them." Socioeconomic status also plays a role. Higher income and education levels slightly increased women's certainty about having children. Yet even among women with a bachelor's degree, the share who were "very sure" about becoming parents declined significantly—from 65 percent in 2014 to 54 percent in 2018. In a related study, Hayford and co-author Karen Benjamin Guzzo of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill examined whether broader societal issues—such as climate change, political instability, or economic inequality—were driving fertility decisions. Using survey data from the American Trends Panel, which polled 3,696 people, the researchers found that personal dissatisfaction with one's own life—not global or national concerns—was the key factor linked to whether someone expected to have children. "It was a bit of a surprise to us, but it was only their personal situation that mattered to whether they expected to have children," Hayford said. The studies show a country that's going through changes in population, feelings and culture. While many Americans still say they want children, that desire is increasingly laced with doubt, flexibility and even indifference. "On the one hand there is a lot of latent desire and intentions to have children," Hayford said. "But people have a lot of uncertainty about whether they will meet those goals, and many don't seem to worry that much if they do or don't have children." Do you have a tip on a science story that Newsweek should be covering? Do you have a question about birth rates? Let us know via science@ References Badolato, L., Hayford, S. R., & Guzzo, K. B. (2025). Multiple dimensions of uncertainty in fertility goals: Recent trends and patterns in the United States. Genus, 81(1), 14. Guzzo, K. B., & Hayford, S. R. (2025). Subjective Evaluations of Personal and Public Well-Being and Expected Future Childbearing. In The Retreat from Marriage and Parenthood: Examining the Causes and Consequences of Declining Rates. Emerald Publishing Limited.
.jpg&w=3840&q=100)
Miami Herald
9 hours ago
- Miami Herald
We've come far since the first Juneteenth. But we still have a long way to go
Back in the early 1970s, when I was a rookie reporter at the Herald, I believed it was my duty as a journalist to tell the story of my people. I wanted white Americans to see the truth about us — what we had endured and what it took to get us to where we are. One of the stories I wanted to tell was that of Juneteenth. It was on June 19, 1865, two and a half years after President Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation, that Union soldiers rode through Galveston, Texas, with the message that the Civil War had ended and that all enslaved people were free. The fact that the slaves in Texas did not know they were free for two and a half years was a horribly cruel joke, played on a people that had been enslaved in this country for more than 300 years. When I tried to sell my Juneteenth story to the city editor, hardly anyone, outside of the African-American community, even knew what Juneteenth was. I felt it was my duty to let others know the significance of the day and what it meant to African Americans. So confident the city editor would think Juneteenth was a great story idea, I presented my story to him. To my disappointment, he barely looked at what I had written and rejected it with the wave of his hand and the words, 'Nobody would be interested in that,' he said. He handed my story back to me without even looking at me. I was crushed. 'They don't want to know us,' I thought as I walked back to my desk near the back of the newsroom. Still, we Blacks knew the significance of the day and Juneteenth celebrations started popping up in many states, including in South Florida. I kept the story in a file in my desk drawer for years, until I retired. Over the years, unbeknownst to me, a woman named Opal Lee had decided that it was high time for Juneteenth to be recognized and even to become a national holiday. Lee, often referred to as the 'Grandmother of Juneteenth,' was 89 in 2016 when she walked from Fort Worth to Washington for the cause of making Juneteenth a federal holiday. Although she didn't walk the entire 1,400 miles, Lee walked a significant portion of the journey and gathered over 1.5 million signatures along the way. This grand gesture brought national attention to Lee's fight to bring recognition to Juneteenth. On June 17, 2021, her hard work paid off, when President Joe Biden signed the Juneteenth National Independence Day Act into law, making June 19 a federal holiday. In the aftermath of celebrating one of our nation's newest federal holidays, my mind wanders back to the days when the slaves in Galveston first learned they were free. As the great-great-granddaughter of slaves, I can only imagine the looks of disbelief and shock that must have registered on the faces of the slaves who first heard the news from the Union soldiers. Not only was the Civil War over, but they were free. In my mind, I can see the jubilation, the dancing, and the joyful singing that must have taken place. In their jubilation, the newly freed slaves dubbed the day, 'Juneteenth.' When the news of their freedom had really sunk in, the reality must have hit them real hard: 'So, we are free. Now what?' What came after that first Juneteenth was often just as bad, or worse, for the freed slaves than when they were enslaved. It seemed that for many slaves, especially those in the Deep South, freedom was something written on paper that many of them couldn't even read. Even after they learned they were free, the former slaves were not prepared for what was to happen next. Although with God-given skills, many of the former slaves were uneducated and stayed with their former owners. Others had the audacity to leave the plantations that had been home to them for generations. They left the plantations where the beatings, the rapes of their young daughters and even their wives had taken place, where lynching was often the price they paid for trying to run away. And, so, many freed Blacks headed north, where they had heard things were better for freed men and women. While getting adjusted to their freedom was not easy, the freed men and women persevered. They started schools in makeshift wooden shacks. They started businesses — women took in laundry and hired other women to work for them. Others used their skills in the kitchen to start tiny restaurants. Some women became known for their skill at designing and sewing beautiful garments for the white women in their communities. One woman, Sarah Goode, became the first Black woman to receive a U.S. patent for her invention of the folding cabinet bed. Born in 1850, she moved to Chicago after the Civil War and opened a furniture store. Her invention served as a desk by day and a bed at night. Early freed Black men became blacksmiths and farmers and used their skills to invent such things as the corn planter, the cotton-cleaning machine, the broom-making machine, and in 1853, the potato chip. And for a period of about 12 years — from the end of the Civil War in 1865 until 1877— life for the newly freed Negro became bearable. It was called the Reconstruction Era and was a time when freed Blacks experienced a period of political and social advancement. It was a time when Hiram Revels, born free and a minister in the African Methodist Episcopal Church, was elected to the U.S. Senate from Mississippi, the first Black U.S. senator. At that time, state legislatures elected U.S. senators. In 1870, Mississippi legislators voted 81 to 15 to elect Revels to the Senate to finish the term of one of the state's two U.S Senate seats, which had been left vacant since the Civil War. A few years later, in 1874, Mississippi legislators elected Blanche K. Bruce, born into slavery, to the U.S. Senate. He was the first African American to serve a full term in the Senate and the first to preside over the Senate in 1879. The 13th, 14th and 15th amendments to the U.S. Constitution — ratified between 1865 and 1870 — were also critical in moving the country forward after the Civil War. The 13th Amendment abolished slavery. The 14th Amendment granted citizenship to all persons 'born or naturalized in the United States,' including former slaves and provided equal protection under the law. The 15th Amendment granted voting rights regardless of race. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 was also a landmark law, determining that all persons born in the United States were citizens, regardless of race, and were entitled to the same fundamental rights as white citizens. Because of these laws, Black men participated in government and held elected positions at the local, state and national levels. Then, all too soon, it was over. White supremacy groups like the Ku Klux Klan were organized, using violence and intimidation to keep Blacks from voting or holding elected office. Jim Crow laws were enacted to disfranchise Blacks and limit their opportunities. But the freed men and women has tasted just enough freedom to carry on their fight for justice and equality. That's because during the Reconstruction Era, the groundwork for the civil rights movement was laid. And the fight continued. So, as I think about Juneteenth and its meaning to Blacks, and indeed all Americans. I think of how far we as a nation have come. I think, too, of how far back some people want to send us. To me, Juneteenth should remind us of the reasons why we as a nation cannot put our efforts into making America 'great again.' Making America 'greater again' doesn't look to promising to people who look like me. Better still, it is up to us all to make our country GREATER — for all its citizens.
