Calling someone a Nazi, or comparing them to Adolf Hitler, was once the last resort of a person losing an argument. Branding someone a Nazi is now the first resort of those who seek to avoid arguments, and it is often bundled with calls for more gun control. Seldom, if ever, is that demand accompanied by facts about actual Nazi policies on firearms. Gun control advocates seem to believe that National Socialist Germany boasted gun stores on every corner selling Mausers to the masses at a discount. Nothing could be further from the truth. As Stephen P. Halbrook shows in Gun Control in the Third Reich: Disarming Jews and “Enemies of the State,” now available in a new edition, Germany maintained no right to keep and bear arms comparable to America’s Second Amendment. According to the National Socialists, nobody needed a firearm for self-defense. The Nazi government also determined that sport shooting and hunting were not legitimate needs. The Nazis wanted the names of those who owned firearms, and they found them in the registration records of the Weimar Republic. Jews were a primary target, so consider the fate of Alfred Flatow, an Olympic medalist for Germany in 1896. In 1932, Flatow complied with the Weimar government and registered three handguns. In 1938, the Nazis arrested him for possession of firearms. In December 1942, Flatow died of starvation in the Theresienstadt concentration camp. Those fond of calling people Nazis fail to account for National Socialist policies in the nations they invaded and occupied. Those can be found in Halbrook’s Gun Control in Nazi-Occupied France: Tyranny and Resistance, also recently released in a new edition. As in Germany, the Nazis exploited the gun registration records imposed by Prime Minister Pierre Laval in 1935. The Nazis, then allied with Stalin’s Soviet Union, invaded France in May 1940. Under the Nazi occupation, all firearms and radio transmitters had to be surrendered, and even those who failed to denounce gun owners were subject to execution. The occupying military forces became the most prominent “active shooters.” On June 10, 1944, in the village of Oradour-sur-Glane, Nazi forces gunned down 196 men, including seven Jewish refugees. The attack also claimed the lives of 245 women and 207 children, including six infants. A disarmed populace, Halbrook explains, is “more susceptible to totalitarian rule and is less able to resist oppression.” Or as the late P. J. O’Rourke put it, this is what happens when the people with all the power have all the guns. Those quick with the Nazi charge could take a lesson from Hans-Jurgen Massaquoi, author of Destined to Witness: Growing Up Black in Nazi Germany. The author recalls the Kristallnacht of Nov. 9, 1938, when Nazi thugs destroyed more than 1,000 Jewish places of worship, killed 91 Jews, and arrested some 30,000 others. “In their many bloody clashes for dominance in Germany,”  Massaquoi explains, “the Nazis and Commies were virtually indistinguishable. Both were totalitarians, ever ready to brutalize to crush resistance to their respective ideologies.” Those who now wield the Nazi accusation might also recall the men who actually fought them. They fought at Monte La Difensa, Anzio, and on the Normandy beaches. They liberated the Nazi death camps, where “conditions of indescribable horror” shook future president Dwight Eisenhower to the core. On April 12, 1945, troops of Canada’s Eighth Reconnaissance Regiment (motto: “first in, last out”) liberated the Westerbork transit camp, from which the Nazis sent thousands of Jews to Auschwitz, Sobibor, and Theresienstadt, where Alfred Flatow perished. As the liberators would understand, there is no parallel between a National Socialist dictatorship and a constitutional republic with free elections. Even under a duly elected president a lot of people don’t like, there is no parallel with National Socialism. Calling people you don’t like Nazis is justification for deadly violence against them. Donald Trump survived two assassination attempts, and Charlie Kirk, who invited people to “prove me wrong” in open debate, has now been shot dead. The horrific act of a depraved criminal does not justify new restrictions on Second Amendment rights. As Americans should know, there’s news on that front from Harmeet Dhillon, assistant attorney general for Civil Rights, who is now cracking down on campus antisemitism. “Every day there are civil rights violations that come across our desk, and we have to prioritize our resources and figure out how to deal with them,” Dhillon explains. “The other thing that’s novel, we’re forming a Second Amendment section of the Civil Rights Division. That’s never been done before.” Lloyd Billingsley is a policy fellow at the Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif.

Generally speaking, there are a few days each year that find Americans scrambling to get inside church doors. We might, as our priests and pastors sometimes tell us, be a nation spiraling into paganism (or at least noneism), but at the very least, we don our too-tight suits and frilly dresses to sit in pews on Christmas, Ash Wednesday, and Easter. For those of us who are more regular churchgoers (and research suggests that it’s really just about 5 percent of us), the whole phenomenon is something of a meme — a meme that has very real consequences for internet behavior. Look at Google search trends for the word “church,” and you’ll notice that there’s generally a peak of activity in the days leading up to each of those three Christian holidays. But in 2025, that graph will look a little different. This past Sunday, Americans started typing the word “church” into their search bars. The numbers aren’t in yet (Google projects numbers and publishes complete data later), but if the projections are close to accurate, the search for “church” last week outstripped the one we typically see at Easter. (READ MORE: The Age of Spiritual Warfare Is Here. Will You Rise or Fall?) Any analyst or statistics geek will tell you, you can only glean so much information from Google search trends. Typing a word into a search engine doesn’t necessarily translate into putting on the aforementioned suit and sitting in a pew. Social media posts (and there were a good number of them on the topic) hardly provide an accurate read of national sentiment. And yet, it seems reasonable to suspect that something stirred in the consciences of ordinary people on Sunday. Why? Christian TikTokers and avid X users credited Charlie Kirk, and it seems likely that his death was a tipping point. That said, the last month of tragic news and political debate have been beckoning people to the pews. The last month has been harrowing and exhausting. First, a transgender man opened fire on a Catholic Church full of school children. Then, a man who should have been in prison or, at the very least, a psychiatric institution, randomly stabbed a Ukrainian immigrant in the neck on a train in Charlotte. Just hours before Charlie Kirk’s assassination, a 16-year-old opened fire on his fellow students during lunch at Evergreen High School in Colorado. (READ MORE: What Charlie Kirk’s Murder Really Means) Then Kirk was shot on a Utah college campus in front of hundreds of students, and minutes later, thousands of Americans online were watching the footage. When those same Americans turned to the internet to learn more about the national tragedy unfolding in real time, they stumbled across leftist social media accounts of all shapes and sizes celebrating (or at least excusing) the man’s death because he believed the same things that most Americans believe. It was, quite simply, terrifying and grotesque. Suddenly, Americans found themselves standing on one side of a seemingly impassable political chasm, wanting absolutely nothing to do with the people on the other side. So they flocked to the churches. At this early date, it’s impossible to claim that we’re watching some kind of spiritual revival driven by Kirk’s death. It’s been a week. Just because people decided to pull themselves out of bed on a Sunday morning once in September doesn’t mean they’ll still be doing it on a regular basis come November. Then again, it’s not like this religious revival — if that’s what we’re about to watch — started yesterday. Before his death, Kirk claimed that we were watching a “Christian revival” unfold before our eyes. Back in February, the National Catholic Register pointed out that, “[a]fter reaching its highest ever margin of 30% in 2022, the number of nones dipped to 28% in 2023.” Ross Douthat and Spencer Klavan are so convinced that a revival is underway that they both recently wrote entire books investigating the movement. Even Axios (not exactly a right-wing publication) noted that young men are “leading a religious resurgence.” It’s about time. We’ve spent decades being told that the only way to achieve happiness is to dig deep enough inside ourselves to find our “identity.” Disney sold us that message in movies about princesses and lightsaber-wielding heroines. School teachers told us we could become whoever and whatever we wanted. Doctors allowed us to bend reality to fit our fantasies. None of it made us happier. If it didn’t drive us mad (and it did just that for some of us), it left us empty and lost. So we, especially Generation Z, started to trickle back into churches. All things considered, it’s not so bad to embrace your identity as a child of God, the great “I Am.” That first building block allows the individual to understand his place in the family, his community, his society, and his country, all of which are critical to building a healthy nation. Of course, we’re nowhere near the end of that road, and there’s no guarantee we’ll walk all the way down it; but, at the risk of succumbing to optimism, it does appear that we’re at least getting started. READ MORE by Aubrey Harris: The Horrific Immigration Scandal We Need to Talk More About

Russia’s appetite for its past has always been ravenous.  Nothing illustrates it better than Moscow’s fixation on Alaska, a fixation less about America’s frontier than about Ukraine’s survival. When Trump hosted Vladimir Putin in Anchorage last month, the American side framed it as pragmatism, a chance to restart dialogue. The Russian side treated it as a homecoming. Putin’s aide Yury Ushakov even called Alaska a “logical” venue because U.S. and Russian interests “intersect in Alaska and the Arctic.” In Moscow’s telling, the real logic was imperial: that America had agreed to meet Russia on ground it once ruled. Symbolism, though, is never innocent. Days after the summit, Putin spoke of “light at the end of the tunnel” in U.S.–Russia relations, stressing possible cooperation in the Arctic and even in Alaska. At the very moment Russia was promising partnership in Anchorage, it was pounding Kharkiv with missiles. What it cloaks in nostalgia in Alaska, it unleashes as destruction in Ukraine. This is why the rhetoric matters. Alaska is the rehearsal; Ukraine is the performance. When Russian politicians insist the 1867 sale was a lease, or when television anchors bluster “Alaska is ours,” they are not fantasizing about the Bering Strait. They are normalizing the notion that sovereignty is provisional, and that history can be reopened whenever convenient. And Ukraine has already lived the consequences. Crimea began as a joke, then a slogan, then a policy, and finally an invasion. Under Trump’s presidency, Russia has sensed room to test this theater further. Talk of reopening U.S. investment in the Sakhalin-1 project, with Russian officials declaring themselves “ready to deepen discussions,” is cast as pragmatism. Yet they risk softening the line that should be unbending: No cooperation is normal while Ukraine’s borders are being shredded. Economic overtures are not separate from imperial ambitions; they are their velvet glove. Russian state media has seized the optics. Commentators praised the Alaska summit as proof that Putin had “restored Russia’s status as a superpower” and forced America to meet him on “former Russian soil.” The more America indulges this theater, the more Moscow believes it has license to rewrite not just its past but Ukraine’s future. For Ukraine, the relevance could not be clearer. The rhetoric of Alaska is the same logic that annexed Crimea in the name of “historical justice” and seized Donetsk and Luhansk as “ancestral soil.” Former U.S. Ambassador Michael McFaul noted that Russian nationalists equate the “loss” of Alaska with the “loss” of Ukraine — both seen as humiliations to be corrected. Political scientist Sam Greene has warned that even symbolic discussions of Alaska validate the idea that territorial ownership is flexible. For Ukrainians, flexibility means occupation. These imagined returns extend beyond Ukraine or the theater of Alaska. In Georgia, Russia has occupied 20 percent of the country’s territory since the 2008 war, keeping around 10,000 troops in Abkhazia and South Ossetia while blocking NATO membership. In Moldova, it sustains 1,500 soldiers in Transnistria and uses Gazprom’s dominance to punish pro-European governments. Kazakhstan, with 3.5 million ethnic Russians, is routinely warned by Russian deputies that its borders are “artificial” and “temporary.” Belarus has become virtually a protectorate since the 2020 protests, reliant on Kremlin loans and energy, while hosting Russian nuclear weapons since 2023. In Central Asia, Moscow keeps 7,000 troops at its base in Tajikistan, controls Kyrgyzstan’s debt, and leverages migrant workers whose remittances account for 30 percent of Kyrgyzstan’s GDP and nearly half of Tajikistan’s. Armenia, weakened by defeats in 2020 and 2023, remains tied to Russia’s security umbrella. Even in the Balkans, the Kremlin exploits Orthodox ties and arms sales to Serbia while financing Bosnian separatists in Republika Srpska to obstruct NATO and EU integration. The pattern is consistent: Moscow refuses to accept sovereignty in its former empire as permanent. The Alaska fixation has long served as a practice ground for this mentality. In 2022, Duma Speaker Vyacheslav Volodin warned Washington that if Russian assets were frozen, Moscow might “claim Alaska.” Billboards soon appeared across Siberia declaring “Alaska is ours.” In 2023 and 2024, propagandist Vladimir Solovyov demanded that Finland, Poland, Moldova — and Alaska — be “returned to the Russian Empire,” while Olga Skabeyeva referred to “our Alaska” on state television. Even Dmitry Medvedev, once touted as a reformer, sneered that Russia had been waiting for Alaska to be “handed back any day now” and that war with America was “unavoidable.” No one imagines Russian troops wading across the Bering Strait. But the habit of speech reveals the psychology of aggression: Nothing lost is ever lost forever. That psychology is what Ukrainians face daily. To them, Alaska talk is not comedy but a reminder of the logic that drives the missiles overhead. What America hears as trolling, Ukraine endures as tragedy. The Kremlin’s appetite for imagined returns is not confined to history books. It is lived reality on Europe’s battlefields. If the U.S. government under Trump allows this narrative to slide — if it treats Alaska talk as trolling, or accepts the symbolism as harmless — it risks undermining Ukraine by signaling that revisionist claims can be entertained. The danger is not that Alaska will be taken, but that Ukraine will be traded. And the Kremlin would happily dress such a trade as the correction of history. Alaska is not coming back to Russia. But the fact that Moscow keeps saying otherwise shows how deeply it relies on grievance as policy. What sounds ridiculous in Anchorage is murderous in Mariupol. America should recognize the link. To indulge fantasies anywhere is to invite their application everywhere. Ukraine’s fight is not just against Russian troops; it is against the very idea that the past is negotiable. If that idea is not stopped in Ukraine, it will not stop with Ukraine. READ MORE: The Ukrainian Refugee Crisis: We Need Them Back Why Trump and Zelensky Don’t Get Along

The question of whether President Donald Trump has turned the United States toward a new “state capitalism” — one in which the government is not just economic referee but active player — has been answered. His second term brings policies that go well beyond traditional Republican pro-market orthodoxies, such as tax cuts and deregulation, and into direct involvement with production and capital. Yet this doctrine is less a coherent grand strategy than a set of ad hoc deals, sometimes pro-market and sometimes interventionist. Some Trump policies — tax cuts, deregulating, talk of budget-deficit reductions — retain a traditional Republican tone. On the other hand, this administration’s protectionism and tariffs would have been inconceivable a decade ago. Republicans would also traditionally label the government’s acquisition of a 10 percent stake in Intel as socialism if proposed by anyone other than Trump. And other policies have the feel of mafia tactics made possible by the exercise of leverage, like letting Nvidia and AMD sell their chips to China in exchange for a 15 percent cut back to the U.S. government. Trump also departs markedly from the past GOP playbook in his lack of recognition that the market allocates resources much better than politicians and bureaucrats do. He treats the market as a stage for negotiation to reorganize the world’s economies. Old-guard Republicans were globalists, whereas Trump built his appeal on “America First” nationalism and protectionism. Earlier Republicans valued predictable rules, but as Cambridge legal scholar Antara Haldar noted in a Project Syndicate symposium this month assessing the direction of “Trumponomics,” the president “is willing to break any rule, norm, or promise … in the name of striking ad hoc corporate-style ‘deals.'” Where conservative-minded leaders of the past obscured the state’s role, Trump “flaunts it.” Yet Haldar correctly argues that Trump’s approach differs from other forms of heavy-handed state control. It is neither the Chinese model nor that of the developmental state. It is “erratic, transactional, and short-sighted” and a rejection of the “quietly overbearing ‘Nanny State’ … in favor of a commanding, patriarchal ‘Daddy State.'” Princeton University historian Harold James, another participant in the symposium, sees Trump as a break from the past due to his revival of state-directed “industrial policy.” This started under former President Joe Biden’s administration, but there is no doubt that Trump’s pursuit of a manufacturing revival and reshoring of global supply chains, along with his tariffs and equity stakes in private companies and his overall aim to rebuild U.S. strategic capacity, fall well into that category. Unfortunately, as James argues, Trump’s brand of industrial policy encourages “hyper-activist corporate lobbying, with large and well-connected enterprises getting the best ‘deals.'” In my opinion, all industrial policies end up this way, not just Trump’s. In this case, I find it particularly interesting that even industrial-policy advocates like Mariana Mazzucato, author of The Entrepreneurial State, seem displeased with Trump’s version. Done right, she claims in her contribution, industrial policy can support innovation and inclusive growth. She sees Trump’s approach as “gestures without purpose, interventions without coordination and spending without strategy.” That’s because Trump’s approach isn’t part of any coherent vision. It’s just transactional. He looks at it in isolation, and if he believes it is a good deal, he does it. That’s what makes the behavior especially damaging: It creates profound uncertainty. Markets thrive on predictable rules, but when the president takes equity stakes or pressures firms at will, investment and risk-taking give way to hesitation. Soon, companies learn that success depends less on innovation or competition than on currying political favor. Resources shift from productive activity to lobbying, undermining both fairness and growth. Because these actions are purely transactional, they entrench the worst aspects of state capitalism: politicized resource allocation, favoritism for the well-connected, and erosion of the rule of law. This isn’t new, but Trump brings a new scale and unique pride in breaking with time-honored conventions of governing. The inevitable result is slower growth, less dynamism, and a political economy driven by rent-seeking instead of entrepreneurship. Michael Strain of the American Enterprise Institute, however, reminds us that despite Trump’s many exercises in state capitalism, his most enduring legislative achievement, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, moves the tax code in a more pro-market direction. Strain concludes that the old classical liberal consensus will endure because its past success “will help to ensure its longevity.” Boy, do I hope he’s correct. The risk is not that Trump has built a sustainable model of state capitalism but that his erratic improvisation is eroding institutional safeguards and trust in markets without delivering durable alternatives. So, is Trump a state capitalist? He certainly acts like one, but “daddy capitalist” is more descriptive. This is little comfort. Veronique de Rugy is the George Gibbs Chair in Political Economy and a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. To find out more about Veronique de Rugy and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at www.creators.com. COPYRIGHT 2025 CREATORS.COM READ MORE: Trump Is Not the Biggest Threat to the Fed’s Independence Tariffs As the New Tax Base: A Laughable Idea

Why Was This Dad Kept From His Newborn?

Antioxidants combat oxidative stress and microbial dysbiosis, promoting a healthy gut microbiome. The review highlights how antioxidants enhance microbial diversity and gut barrier integrity. Berries, leafy greens, citrus fruits, nuts and green tea are top sources. Incorporating probiotics, prebiotics and high-fiber foods supports gut health. Avoiding sugar, stress and smoking helps maintain a balanced microbiome. Article by Willow Tohi, republished with permission from Naturalnews.com For years, the gut microbiome has been a buzzword in the health world, and for good reason: it plays a critical role in modulating the immune system, promoting digestive health and even influencing our mood and cognitive function. Now, new research is shedding light on how antioxidants—already known for their anti-inflammatory and anti-aging benefits—could be the key to maintaining a healthy and balanced gut microbiome. A recent review in the Journal of Functional Foods highlights the importance of dietary antioxidants in nurturing a robust, diverse microbiota. This study, which analyzed the effects of antioxidants like carotenoids and polyphenols, reveals their potential to reduce oxidative stress and combat microbial dysbiosis, a condition linked to a range of diseases from IBS to obesity. For the health-conscious consumer, this means that increasing your intake of antioxidant-rich foods could improve not just gut health, but overall well-being. This article delves into the latest findings, offering actionable advice on how you can nourish your microbiome today. Understanding the role of antioxidants in gut health Antioxidants, a broad class of compounds that neutralize harmful free radicals, have long been celebrated for their ability to ward off oxidative stress. But their applications in gut health might be even more crucial. According to the review, prolonged exposure to reactive oxygen species (ROS) can lead to microbial dysbiosis, an imbalance between beneficial and harmful gut bacteria. This imbalance can trigger a cascade of health issues, including gastrointestinal disorders, inflammation and metabolic diseases. By scavenging these toxic radicals, antioxidants help preserve the integrity of the gut microbiome, ensuring a harmonious ecosystem where good bacteria can thrive. Antioxidants and the gut microbiome: A symbiotic relationship The symbiosis between antioxidants and gut microbes is a fascinating area of study. Researchers have found that certain dietary antioxidants, including carotenoids and polyphenols, can promote a healthy microbiome by enhancing microbial diversity and reducing unbalanced populations of harmful bacteria. These antioxidants also trigger the production of short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs), which are key to maintaining the gut barrier and supporting intestinal health. Carotenoids: Beta-carotene, lycopene and lutein are particularly effective, with studies showing they can help mitigate inflammation and encourage the growth of beneficial bacteria. Polyphenols: These compounds, abundant in foods like berries and green tea, have been shown to improve gut barrier integrity and increase the production of SCFAs, which are essential for maintaining a balanced gut environment. GRAB POLYPHENOLS HERE ON AMAZON: Key sources of antioxidants for your diet Incorporating antioxidants into your daily diet is easier than you might think. The review suggests a “rainbow approach” to eating, focusing on the vibrant colors found in fruits and vegetables. Each hue represents a different kind of antioxidant, offering a wide range of benefits for gut health. Additionally, dietary supplements that isolate potent antioxidants such as vitamin C, zinc and turmeric can be a convenient way to bolster your intake, especially after periods of poor gut health, such as following a course of antibiotics or indulgence in sweets. Top antioxidant-rich foods: Berries: Blueberries, strawberries and raspberries are packed with polyphenols. Leafy greens: Spinach, kale and broccoli offer high levels of vitamin C and beta-carotene. Citrus fruits: Oranges, grapefruits and lemons are great sources of vitamin C. Nuts and seeds: Almonds, walnuts and sunflower seeds contain vitamin E and selenium. Green tea: One of the richest sources of antioxidants like EGCG. Dietary strategies for gut microbiome optimization In addition to antioxidants, there are numerous other dietary strategies that can optimize your gut microbiome. Incorporating both probiotic and prebiotic foods into your routine is vital. Probiotic-rich foods like yogurt, kefir and sauerkraut introduce beneficial bacteria into your digestive system, while prebiotic foods like bananas, onions and artichokes feed these beneficial microbes, aiding in their proliferation. High-fiber foods like legumes, berries and sweet potatoes also encourage microbial diversity, which is essential for maintaining a healthy microbiome. Avoiding gut disruptors Not only is it important to introduce beneficial foods, but it’s also crucial to avoid gut disruptors. Stress, sleep deprivation, excessive sugar intake and smoking can all hinder microbiome health. By cutting back on these “gut disruptors” and incorporating a variety of antioxidant-rich, fiber-dense foods, you can create an environment where beneficial bacteria flourish. Why this matters NOW Historically, the connection between the gut microbiome and overall health has been the subject of much research, but the role of antioxidants in this equation has often been overlooked. As our understanding of the microbiome expands, the importance of antioxidants in maintaining gut health is becoming increasingly clear. This new research suggests that by prioritizing antioxidant-rich foods and supplements, we can support our microbiome, potentially reducing the risk of numerous diseases and improving our overall quality of life. Gut health and antioxidant intake As we delve deeper into the intricate relationship between antioxidants and the gut microbiome, one thing becomes increasingly clear: a well-nourished microbiome is the cornerstone of health. By making small, consistent changes in our diet and lifestyle, we can harness the power of antioxidants to support a robust and thriving microbiome. Whether it’s through a vibrant, color-rich diet or targeted supplementation, the path to a healthier gut—and a healthier life—is within reach. Enjoy your rainbow salad—your gut will thank you. Sources for this article include: MindBodyGreen.com ScienceDirect.com AncientNutrition.com

BY THE OPTIMIST DAILY EDITORIAL TEAM For generations, the Chicago River was overlooked, dismissed, and heavily polluted. But today, this waterway is showing signs of life so promising that Chicago is preparing to host its first downtown open-water swim in nearly a century. “Everyone used to think of the river as ‘gross’—an alley for dumping waste,” says Krystyna Kurth, coordinator of conservation action at the Shedd Aquarium. That perception was well-earned. For decades, the Chicago River served as a conduit for industrial waste, sewage, and trash. The post-industrial era only reinforced that view, as buildings literally turned their backs to the river with windowless walls. But things are changing visibly, audibly, and even virally. Kayakers exploring the North Branch might spot herons, hear buzzing insects, and, if they’re lucky, glimpse the social media-famous snapping turtle known as “Chonkosaurus.” And they’re now more likely to describe the river with words like “diverse” or “alive.” A river once treated like an alley Before trains dominated freight transport, barges moved goods along the river. To make space for large boats, the city dredged the riverbed and lined the waterway with steel, destroying sloped banks and plant habitats. What remained was a deep, silty channel where few species could survive. “The river really was the alley,” Kurth explains. “You didn’t look at it. You didn’t think about it. You sent that water away.” That disregard reached its nadir in the 1970s, when just five fish species were found in the river, including carp and goldfish. From five fish species to seventy-seven A turning point came in 1972 with the Clean Water Act. The landmark legislation prohibited unpermitted dumping of pollutants into navigable waters, and catalyzed improvements across U.S. waterways, including Chicago’s. “The fish changed because the water is cleaner,” says Austin Happel, a research biologist at the Shedd Aquarium. He credits the jump from ten to seventy-seven fish species to enhanced sewage treatment and stormwater storage through the city’s Tunnel and Reservoir Plan (TARP). Harmful contaminants like fecal coliforms and ammonia have dropped dramatically. That cleaner water has drawn not just fish but people. Upscale offices now fill buildings once reserved for heavy industry. The Mars Wrigley company opened a lighthouse-inspired R&D facility, and a former salt warehouse has been reimagined as the popular concert venue “The Salt Shed.” Kurth hopes to see similar revitalization on the South Branch, where communities have faced greater environmental burdens. Floating wetlands and a new kind of park One of the river’s standout features today is the Wild Mile, a floating eco-park just east of Goose Island. Built by Urban Rivers in partnership with the Shedd Aquarium, the Wild Mile includes pontoons hosting native plants on top and roots underneath that help filter heavy metals from the water. “The Wild Mile is the world’s first floating eco-park,” says Sage Rossman, community outreach and programs manager at Urban Rivers. The plants also capture excess phosphorus and nitrogen, key contributors to algal blooms. Rossman explains, “If your dog poops and you don’t clean it up, or you throw a pizza crust on the street, that waste eventually ends up in the river. The plants help pull those nutrients out.” The floating platforms also contain submerged modules that mimic a natural riverbed, which allows the reintroduction of native mussels and serves as a nesting spot for bluegill and pumpkinseed fish. The Wild Mile currently spans about 700 feet, which is not yet quite a mile, but its stewards aim to expand. Cleaner water, cleaner future This revival is inspiring not only locals but also international researchers. Levi Lundell, a Ph.D. student from the University of Saskatchewan, visited the Wild Mile after hearing about it in a university course. “What impressed me,” he said, “was how this project brings back native species while welcoming people too. It’s a pragmatic approach to restoration.” The river still has remnants of its past like concrete factories and waste facilities, but the overall trajectory is one of transformation. From sewage canal to eco-park, the Chicago River is becoming a symbol of urban ecological hope.The post How the Chicago River went from dumping ground to eco destination first appeared on The Optimist Daily: Making Solutions the News.