Hello! Welcome to my Hallmark movie casting call.

My vision is as follows. You: a busy careerist or parent or homemaker. The specifics aren’t important, other than your main personality trait, which is “busy.” Setting: the holidays, as I’ve been reliably informed that this is a requirement for Hallmark films. The drama: You are not done shopping for presents, and it is crunch time.

Oh no.

Enter me, your holiday fairy godmother. (Like any good director, I am casting myself as the hero.) While you’re melting down at the prospect of spreading insufficient cheer—your character in ruins, the pressure too much to bear—I appear. Timing is everything. I whisk you away to our supporting cast, a merry band of weirdos, who soothe your sorrows with unorthodox gift suggestions that would have been impossible to find elsewhere. Thanks to the beauties of technology and capitalism, our story need not take place in the quintessential small town. It unfolds instead in the digital sphere, where a massively expanded inventory is available a few clicks away. This isn’t your stereotypical Hallmark film. It’s going to be a banger.

So let us begin.

As your holiday guide, I must recommend what is best for every good little man, woman, and child: the gift of freedom, in the form of Reason magazine. Perhaps you know someone who likes freedom. Perhaps you know someone who hates freedom. Reason is perfect for both, whether to elicit a “yes, queen!” or a conversion. Buy three-, two-, or one-year subscriptions—all for a little over $1 an issue—here, before printing out this cute little graphic we made and wrapping it in a box. They’ll never see it coming.

We also have our swag store with selections for babies, toddlers, and adults. Among other things, we sell a tie dye tee, maybe for those who spend time wistfully remembering 1990s fashion. Who can say? We also offer this neck gaiter, which is slightly reminiscent of the disguises federal immigration officers are donning these days, except it has Reason branding. Please do not get any ideas.

After all, we have all the brilliant ideas you could possibly need to triumph over your shopping anxiety. Scroll on for your happy ending. —Billy Binion, reporter

For the Sleeping Beauty who struggles with the sleeping part:

Cursed with being a two-stage sleeper, I try to focus on the upside: I get to do about an hour of nightly interruption-free reading with my Kindle, usually between 4 and 5 a.m. Eventually, my eyes go soft focus and I drift off for round two. I used to drop the device off the side of the bed, snapping awake to a thud.

My Kindle bed mount with a page-turning wireless remote has solved that problem and made being awake in the middle of the night less miserable. I’m a stomach sleeper, so I orient my head sideways on the pillow at my preferred angle, with the screen comfortably in view. The remote goes in my opposite hand off to the side, allowing me to turn the pages with an almost imperceptible finger movement. Because my body stays completely inert, it’s easier to fall back asleep. And your loved ones do not need to suffer from a tortured sleep schedule to enjoy this gift, as it’ll nudge the recipient toward reading great books instead of falling down their nightly social media rabbit hole.

My contraption is currently loaded with Vincent Cannato’s The Ungovernable City, a 720-page recounting of former New York Mayor John Lindsay’s disastrous time in office. The book is newly relevant now that socialist Zohran Mamdani is on the verge of taking office in my poor city. Next, I’ll be rereading Thomas Sowell’s masterpiece Knowledge and Decisions for a libertarian book club I just formed with my libertarian son, libertarian dad, and not-at-all libertarian mother-in-law (though she does read Reason and is very tolerant of what I push on her).

Reading Sowell will be even more delightful than usual with my Kindle bed mount with wireless remote control. The insomniac in your life will treasure it too. —Jim Epstein, executive editor

Buy the Kindle holder with remote page turner for $28.05

My best days (and nights) have been in bed. But as any femme d’un certain âge will tell you, once your hormones go haywire, nothing will knock you out despite mainlining melatonin and desperately doomscrolling through sleep apps at 3 a.m.

Enter the Eight Sleep Pod, a hydropowered bed cover that circulates water of your chosen temperature beneath you, cooling your sweaty self down and sending you into deep dreamland.

Regulation is always a touchy subject for libertarians, but when it comes to sleepytime temperature regulation, I’m all about central planning: My bed must be chilly, my Bavarian goose down comforter calibrated for springtime, and the air conditioner set to a balmy 72 degrees Fahrenheit. If you’re shopping for someone who may live in a house (bed?) divided—maybe your own—take heart: With the Pod’s dual-zone temperature regulation, I can keep my side at an arctic 55 degrees Fahrenheit without worrying that my husband will turn into a meat popsicle.

Deep-pocketed shoppers will find fun add-ons, like a snore reduction platform that jacks up the price to even more appalling levels, and subscription-based ways to track health metrics like heart rate, respiratory rate, and other science-y metrics that help you rest. Yeah, it’s pricey. But consider how much time you waste tossing and turning in hopes of catching some zzzzs! Those sweet dreams will no longer be so elusive. —Melissa Mann, senior director of donor relations

Shop the Eight Sleep Pod starting at $2,449

Air travel used to be prohibitively expensive for the vast majority of people. Thanks to a mixture of innovation, deregulation, and the competition that comes with the market, it is now widely available to the masses, meaning there is a solid chance you have a jet-setter in your inner circle.

The Trtl Pillow Plus will save their neck during their sojourns.

But this isn’t just any pillow. The unconventional product is height adjustable, wrappable—as opposed to the nonmalleable U-shaped cushions people are accustomed to seeing—and easy to stuff in a suitcase. I’ve tested it on 20-hour trips and can confirm: If the nomad in your life isn’t sleeping in a first-class bed, you can give them the next-best thing. —Adani Samat, creative art director

Buy the Trtl Pillow Plus for $52.49

For the Martha or Marty Stewarts making a house a home:

I’m a firm believer that every dining surface needs a tablecloth. They’re cheaper than shelling out for a nice table—in our first home together, an inexpensive Amazon tablecloth helped disguise the battered beer-pong table my husband brought from his college apartment—and they instantly add a layer of personality to any kitchen or dining room setup.

My favorite offerings infuse a bit of whimsy into the equation. Misette has a series of utterly gorgeous (albeit pricey) tablecloths and runners printed with delicate watercolor vegetables. The produce-packed table runner is one of my favorite home decor items. It’s a conversation starter that lets me make quips about all the lovely veggies currently threatened by tariffs. Get a second cocktail in me, and I might even pop off about the farm bailouts. (Yes, I host some real ragers.)

For residents of Washington, D.C., Little Tibet Boutique operates a stall in the Eastern Market during the weekends and sells a range of beautiful block-print cotton products. I own several of their tablecloths, which come in an impressive range of colors and pattern styles. I justify my addiction with the knowledge that I’m supporting an immigrant-owned small business. I’m OK with a tablecloth trade deficit (and you should be, too)! —Emma Camp, associate editor

Shop Misette table linens

Harnessing technology for indoor climate control has long been a subject of fascination, dating all the way back to the ancient Romans’ and Egyptians’ early air conditioning systems. Heating, ventilation, and AC are now the standard in American households (Europe could never). But in 2025, we have a slew of options to further optimize the air around us.

That’s why a great humidifier is a perfect Christmas gift this season. As temperatures plunge and the air dries out, a humidifier can help lessen the need for constant moisturizing and hydration to keep those crow’s-feet at bay. We have two Canopy Bedside Humidifiers in our home—they’re easy to use, easy to clean in the dishwasher on occasion, and easy to change the filters for (on the rare occasions you need them changed).

Monitoring the air can be helpful too, whether you’re worried about air pollution from a nearby road or just want to know when you can turn off the vent fan in your kitchen after cooking a stovetop meal. I got the Airthings View Plus a year ago to monitor particulate matter, carbon dioxide, radon, and more in my home. There are cheaper versions available from Airthings if you’re not as neurotic about air quality as I am (though only the View Plus measures particulate matter, a.k.a. air pollution, and that’s what I’ve found most problematic in my house).

Capitalism has given us an almost magical ability to control the weather and air inside our homes. The ancient Romans may have had rudimentary AC, but could they beat back pollutants that cause headaches, asthma attacks, and lung cancer? —Jason Russell, managing editor

Buy the Canopy Bedside Humidifier for $159

Buy the Airthings View Plus for $329.99

Know someone who is perpetually too slow with the fly swatter? Have you noticed their sanity slowly eroding as they struggle to expel those aerial buzzers from their home?

Fret no longer.

With the BUG-A-SALT 3.0, they’ll need only a working trigger finger to rid their house of unwanted visitors. The shotgun-like pest control device is delightfully simple to operate.

The user pours some ordinary table salt into the hopper. A pump-action slide compresses some of this salt into a single charge. Once loaded and cocked, one need only aim and fire. The salt plume that’s ejected shreds flies like wrapping paper.

Even substandard marksmen (couldn’t be me) should be able to kill a small insect at ranges of six to ten feet.

I’ll confess that the BUG-A-SALT 3.0 is both effective and cathartic. While not a proper firearm, the device is a helpful reminder of how the spirit of the Second Amendment secures our right to self-defense, whether from human intruders who threaten our lives or insect intruders that threaten our sanity.

It comes in many colors, but I suggest an intimidating black color. Bullseye. —Christian Britschgi, reporter

Buy the Bug-A-Salt 3.0 for $49.95

For the one who prefers tabletop to bar top:

Libertarians know that all value is subjective, but it can be difficult to reflect that reality in a game. Park Place always costs $350, no matter who owns Boardwalk.

The game Modern Art manages the trick beautifully. Players get to cosplay as art dealers with control over world-renowned collections and the hunger to take them to the next level. During each turn, someone puts a painting up for auction and the others compete to buy it. As in real life, the artworks have no intrinsic value beyond what players are willing to pay—and your goal, of course, is to maximize returns. At the end of each round, the collections containing works by the best-selling artists, as determined by the results of the auctions themselves, are rewarded with an extra payout (presumably from the art-loving public that’s obsessed with your swanky new acquisitions).

Price signals emerge spontaneously, and they become clearer as each new painting is brought to market, particularly when it comes to which artists are hot and which are not. The player controlling the auction is trying to squeeze the biggest payday from the others, while everyone else tries to buy low and sell high. Will Sigrid’s melancholy vibes be the next big thing? Or can you drive the market towards Manuel’s bold street art? Make the most money, and you win.

The game is far from new: Modern Art was designed by Reiner Knizia and first sold in Germany in the early 1990s. But it was the best game I was introduced to this year—and it’s sure to be a blast for anyone who enjoys the creative chaos of the free market. —Eric Boehm, reporter

Buy Modern Art for $34.99

Over 50 years after its creation, Dungeons & Dragons—affectionately known as D&D—has officially clawed its way into pop culture. Recently the inspiration for a major feature film, the world’s most famous role-playing game appears to be bigger than ever. If you’ve been cautiously considering joining the dice-rolling ranks, the D&D Essentials Kit is the perfect entry point, whether you’re a first-time player or a veteran emerging from retirement.

Inside, you’ll find everything you need to begin your first adventure: dice to roll, character sheets to fill out, a simple rulebook to learn the rules of the road, and a starter quest in the mythical and fantastical Forgotten Realms to take on. Your appointed Dungeon Master—maybe you, should you accept the challenge—carves out the contours of your tale, while the supporting characters flesh it out as the game proceeds. There are monsters to fight and spells to cast, all while a dragon lies somewhere in wait to terrorize your party. Maybe you’ll fight the beast; maybe you’ll attempt to negotiate with it; maybe you’ll ignore it entirely. The choice is entirely up to you, and the possibilities seem endless.

That’s the real magic of D&D: the freedom to explore, experiment, and shape your own story. It’s a good reminder that people thrive when they can ultimately chart their own destinies without inhibition. —Phillip Bader, marketing coordinator

Buy the D&D Essentials Kit for $23.24

Looking to gift a fun group activity that’s quick and easy to learn? The Mind is a minimalist card game where players must place numbered cards—1 to 100—in ascending order. The catch: Everyone must cooperate without speaking or signaling; success depends entirely on coordination, hunches, and trust. If someone lays down a card with a higher number than one held by another player, the group loses a life. Stay alive to keep leveling up.

The game perfectly captures that spontaneous order—and the individual coordination it depends on—can emerge from ambiguity and chaos. (It’s also a surefire way to avoid noise complaints when you have friends over, but I digress.) The way to win is to wait, observe, and trust the invisible hand of intuition. —Justin Zuckerman, producer

Buy The Mind for $8.99

For the one who needs some actual self-care—not just the Instagram version:

This Christmas, you can help Mr. or Mrs. Claus shed the pounds he or she is bound to put on after scarfing down a(n) (un)healthy helping of cookies.

You’ve heard about it; you’ve seen the South Park episode about it; you’ve been stunned when formerly fat celebrities swear by it (and forswear their commitment to body positivity).

I’m talking about Ozempic.

Well, not Ozempic per se. That’s a prescription drug that requires an appointment with your primary care physician, who may frustrate you by requiring that you try an exercise and diet regime first. What’s more, it could run you an eye-popping monthly bill, thanks in part to onerous regulatory hurdles from the Food and Drug Administration. Increased competition will continue bringing that down. But that takes time. And you don’t have the time or—let’s be honest—the will power to do all that.

I’m talking about the active ingredient: Semaglutide.

You most certainly cannot get this for under $16 per month—$190 in total—by purchasing the 10-vial kit of 10mg vials from exaph-Nay (We all remember Pig Latin from grade school, right?), which is definitely not meant for research purposes. This will last your tubby loved one 12 months—more than enough time to become lithe and limber.

Oh, and there’s definitely not a step-by-step guide for how to store, prepare, and inject semaglutide by an X user—who, disclaimer, is not a medical professional—called remieux-Cay. (Oink, oink!)

In case you feel a bit uneasy going under the table, so to speak, there are middle-ground options that have lowered barriers to access as the market adjusts to the demand for what is truly a modern medical miracle. That includes Ro, for example, the telehealth company ​​partnering with Serena Williams to promote use of GLP-1s, like Ozempic and Zepbound. If it’s good enough for the GOAT, it’s good enough for me.

Imagine telling someone from times past that there would one day come a potion that could effectively cure obesity. That day is now. So this Christmas, give your husband, your wife, or yourself the best gift of all: beauty. Keep the change, you filthy—wait—soon-to-be sexy animal! —Jack Nicastro, assistant editor

Buy the 10 mg Semaglutide kit for $190

The best part of the holiday season is arguably the food. But people may be weighing priorities differently this year. Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) leader Robert F. Kennedy Jr.—relatively new as Health and Human Services secretary—has already agreed to phase out some artificial food dyes, and state lawmakers are following suit. With the growing chorus of MAHA moms and politicians, who knows what will be next?

Your loved ones may react in one of two ways. They could use this as an excuse to get seconds, naturally. But on the off chance someone is inspired to develop healthier eating habits before the government mandates them, I would recommend the Nama J2 Cold Press Juicer.

This product takes the grunt work out of clean eating. Roughly chop your favorite combination of fruits and vegetables, throw it in the machine, press a button, and voilà. Through a slow, cold-pressed method, which yields more nutrients—RFK Jr. would be so proud—J2 uses an auger to extract the juice from your produce. With a built-in strainer, it separates the pulp and the liquid into separate containers for a convenient juicing experience. (If you’re really looking to get crunchy, freeze the pulp instead of throwing it away, and add it to smoothies for an extra nutritional boost.) Every J2 comes with a recipe book for novices to kickstart their health journey.

Buyer beware: The juicer is made in South Korea, which, under the protectionist Trump administration, means that it could be subject to tariffs. Nama fortunately includes all import duties in the price tag of its products, so American gift givers need not worry about being hit with one of those surprise tariff bills when the juicer is delivered. —Jeff Luse, deputy managing editor

Buy the Nama J2 Cold Press Juicer for $599

For the lover of historical fiction, from ancient times to Too Soon:

Robert Harris’ page-turning trilogy—Imperium, Conspirata (originally published as Lustrum in the United Kingdom), and Dictator—follows the extraordinary life of the Roman statesman Marcus Tullius Cicero.

Spoiler alert: Cicero was a fierce defender of the Roman Republic against the monarchical pretensions of dictator-for-life Julius Caesar. Styled as the lost biography written by Cicero’s loyal secretary, Tiro, these volumes vividly depict the personalities, the conflicts, and the overweening lust for power that brought down the Roman Republic. The unfortunately-timely trilogy makes clear to readers just what is at stake when it comes to defending freedom, honor, and the rule of law against autocratic ambition. —Ronald Bailey, science correspondent

Buy the Cicero trilogy for $39.99

I used to love to give and receive books for Christmas, but dead-tree books have lost some of their allure in the Kindle era. The Jefferson Bible is an exception to that rule.

In retirement, Thomas Jefferson took a razor and glue to multiple New Testaments in English, French, Latin, and Greek. He sliced out the miracles, the resurrection, and the supernatural bits. He then reassembled what was left into a single, chronological account of Jesus as a radically demanding moral teacher rather than a divine figure. It’s a fascinating read for believers, skeptics, and dads who are excited to kick off their America 250th celebrations.

The original 1820 manuscript—an 84-page, hand-bound volume in red leather—is now in the collections of the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History. But for the price of a pair of expensive socks, you can buy this full-color facsimile with insanely high production values and tons of extra scholarly material. It’s the prettiest, weirdest, most interesting-looking book I own. As someone who still very much relishes turning a physical page, that’s saying something. —Katherine Mangu-Ward, editor in chief

Buy The Jefferson Bible for $26.67

Does anyone buy movies anymore? Because they should, and not just to marinate in the nostalgia that comes with memories of trips to Blockbuster. (RIP.) Thanks to Blu-ray and special 4k Ultra, viewers can get sharper imagery and crisper audio than they would via streaming.

For the movie buff in your life, consider giving them an elevated viewing experience in the form of Eddington. 2025 was the year that Hollywood finally started to reckon with what happened in 2020. And no movie took on that year’s combination of anger, paranoia, and can’t-make-it-up insanity more directly than this film. Directed with winking glee by cult horror auteur Ari Aster, Eddington reimagines the pandemic and the politics around 2020 first as shotgun-blast satire, and then as something more like a nightmare.

When the movie starts, it follows a small-town sheriff in New Mexico who is bothered by the obvious hypocrisy of mask advocates. He’s countered by an obnoxious mayoral candidate who argues that the sheriff is being selfish and unreasonable. All around them, society seems to erupt in Black Lives Matter protests and inscrutable ads for crypto and broad-based social disruption, much of it run through internet culture.

But what starts as a sharp-witted smirk eventually devolves into something more terrifying, as well-funded antifa soldiers descend on the town and the sheriff finds himself in a murderous, all-out rage on its streets. It’s a movie about how, in 2020, everyone went totally crazy. And its manic finale suggests that the only way to really reckon with that year’s impact is to relive it as a fever dream of social upheaval, entirely divorced from common sense or basic reality—because in some deep and still-traumatic sense, that’s what it was. —Peter Suderman, features editor

Buy Eddington on Blu-ray for $29.99

For the doomsday practitioner readying for apocalypses big and small:

I’m not ashamed of the fact I have a touch of prepper—grow up dodging ice storm blackouts and tornadoes, all in the twilight of the Cold War, and you, too, will plan ahead for when the grid flickers.

The Jackery 500 is a portable battery with 500 watt-hours. For the less paranoid, that’s more than enough to charge a laptop and smartphones multiple times. I take mine camping so I can work on scripts in the woods. I imagine it would be very useful on the lam, which will definitely never apply to me. Also, road trips.

Technically, it’d be cheaper in terms of watt-hours just to get a lithium battery and hook it up yourself, as our ancestors did. But the beauty of living in an era of insane technological innovation is that you do not have to do that. The Jackery has some major advantages: There is a built-in inverter, so that you can run alternating-current devices (like laptops) off of the direct-current power, notably while on the lam. Also it does not need to be grounded. I don’t know how to ground a battery—last time I attempted it, I kept electrocuting my so-called friend Billy. Billy screamed like a girl repeatedly and then criticized my electrical skills and wanted to know how I got another key to his house.

The Jackery 500 would have taken care of all of that. —Andrew Heaton, producer

Buy the Jackery 500 for $299

I use pocketknives every day. There’s daily stuff that needs cutting, of course. And I’m not above whipping them out at restaurants as a substitute for their dull instruments. Naturally, I’ve given many as gifts.

If your intended recipient needs a tough folding knife that won’t elicit tears if lost, I like Cold Steel’s Crawford 1. It’s reasonably priced and hand-filling with a 3.6-inch 4034 stainless steel blade, a polymer handle, a flipper for opening, and liner lock with a secondary safety to prevent nasty unintended closures. For an upgrade, consider Doug Ritter’s RSK Mk1-G2, a folder created in partnership with the reliable and high-quality Hogue. Its 3.4-inch blade is composed of justifiably buzzy Magnacut steel, its handle is made of G10 composite fiberglass, and its lock is Hogue’s variant on the out-of-patent and well-regarded Axis crossbar. (If all of that sounds like Chinese to you, that means it’s really good.) As the head of Knife Rights, buying Ritter’s design also helps his efforts against restrictive knife laws.

Some knife fanciers insist folding knives are weakened by the pivot. A connoisseur may prefer a fixed-blade knife sized for everyday carry. I gave my son a budget-friendly Gerber Stowe with a 2.5-inch 440A stainless steel blade and micarta handle scales. It comes with a leather sheath that keeps the overall 6-inch knife relatively discreet on a belt. For an upgrade, consider ESEE’s Sencillo (“simple” in Spanish), a 7.25-inch knife with a 3-inch blade and burlap micarta handle scales. The Magnacut version of the knife appears to be sold out everywhere, but the A2-steel version is plenty sharp and durable. I would know, as I carry it on me. —J.D. Tuccille, contributing editor

Shop Blade HQ

Shop Doug Ritter

For those who want to drink around the world without going to Epcot:

Some people collect postcards when they travel. I collect ways to make decent coffee on the go. (We are not the same.) After one too many watery hotel brews and overpriced chain coffees, I started bringing my own setup—and this small Japanese dripper from MUNIEQ, called the Tetra, has become my absolute favorite travel companion. Sorry, husband!

It’s made of stainless steel, it folds entirely flat, and it somehow feels both delicate and sturdy at the same time. It’s easy to assemble and fits neatly in your bag—or even your wallet, for our coffee kings. It’s technically designed for camping (ahem, glamping), but there’s no reason you shouldn’t take it on your next trip abroad. All you need are filters, ground coffee, and hot water, and you can make a satisfying coffee cup wherever you are.

This is the perfect gift for that friend or family member who is always on the move yet refuses to settle for bad coffee. And thanks to the miracle that is global, interconnected free enterprise, this contraption—designed and manufactured in Japan—can be someone’s globetrotting partner after just a few clicks and (relatively) few dollars. —Katarina Hall, staff editor

Buy the Tetra Portable Coffee Drip for $41.07

For the whiskey, scotch, bourbon, or glassware lover in your life, I recommend gifting them a Glencairn Glass. Designed in Scotland, this item is the standard-bearer for savoring a dram of whiskey and experiencing a taste of Brigadoon from the comfort of your La-Z-Boy.

I’ll admit I was initially skeptical. What would make this meaningfully different from a tumbler? Be serious. But after my first sip of Lagavulin from a Glencairn, I was a convert. The tapered design perfectly delivers the complex taste and aroma of the spirit, and the crystalline glass—mouth cut and hand blown—allows you to marvel at the color of your whiskey. It also just feels really good to hold in your hand. Simple pleasures.

What about the teetotalers in your life? No matter—I’d still recommend this product. Crafted from leaded crystal (though there is a standard lead-free variation too), this glass has a nice weight and a gorgeous shine, making it a great addition to any glassware collection. Pour some lemonade and feel bougie.

And you don’t have to break the bank. The cut leaded crystal version is currently selling for around $33, and the lead-free version is on the market right now for just $8. If you want it to be extra special, you can supplement with an engraving for a small upcharge. Bottoms up. —Cody Huff, post-production supervisor

Buy the Cut Glencairn Glass for $33.33

When you’re shopping for kids (but really for their parents):

Got a homeschooling family or an inquisitive preschooler on your Christmas list? Let me introduce you to Wondergarten. What started as an in-home preschool run by Texas couple Lisa and Nathaniel Santa Cruz has become somewhat of an early-childhood empire, featuring a podcast, merchandise, and more. There are seasonally-themed, non-academic books full of songs, stories, and child-friendly art, kitchen, and nature activities—grounded in a curriculum that emphasizes creativity and imagination. There’s an online store selling everything from craft supplies to custom playsilks.

But the real standout, in my opinion, is the Wondergarten music, composed by Nathaniel Santa Cruz and performed by Kathryn Brunner. It makes a great entry point into the whimsical Wondergarten world for kids and families who won’t be doing the whole curriculum. The albums are free to listen to on the Wondergarten website but can also be purchased there in CD format, or as MP3s on iTunes; illustrated songbooks, featuring sheet music and lyrics, are also for sale in physical and digital formats. So it is possible to gift this music from far away, or in an unwrappable form.

My two sons—ages 2 and 4—have loved listening to the Wondergarten albums, which are broken down by season and month and feature a cast of characters that includes Mr. Hamilton Squirrel, Mr. Morrison Mole, and several distinct gnomes and fairies, as well as personifications of the natural world (such as Sister Flame and Grandfather Moon). The songs are cute and creative without being cloying, which is likely a relief to parents who are really, really tired of hearing Cocomelon. Some of the musical accompaniment is genuinely lovely.

After getting hooked on the albums, we started listening to the Wondergarten podcast, which features enchanting and well-produced tales of the gnomes and other familiar inhabitants of Wondergarten. Not only is my 4-year-old transfixed by these, but they’ve also inspired a lot of imaginative play on his own.

With Wondergarten, the Santa Cruz family has created a fun, immersive, and wonder-filled world that feels like a reprieve from the media and activities typically aimed at children these days. It’s engaging without being fast-paced, high-tech, or neon-tinged. It doesn’t assume small boys and girls must have totally different interests. It’s wholesome without being explicitly religious. There are no superheroes or royalty. It’s all about encouraging exploration, imagination, and independence—things that most parents, but perhaps especially libertarian-leaning ones, can appreciate. —Elizabeth Nolan Brown, senior editor

Shop Wondergarten

Is your home decor populated heavily with LEGO displays? Relatable. The good news: You can increase the ROI on those pricey sets with a compatible lighting kit.

I’ve purchased several for my teenage son and they turn static exhibitions into dramatic showpieces. While the LEGO brand itself commands premium prices, these add-ons are competitively and affordably priced, thanks to an active aftermarket of independent kit makers. Some builds are surprisingly intricate—as was the Rivendell kit featured here—but when it comes to LEGO, extra complexity tends to be a feature, not a bug. —Jackie Pyke, vice president for advancement

Buy the YEABRICKS LED Light for LEGO for $35.99

Reason is one of the few places where you can hear a constant drumbeat about the importance of raising “free-range kids,” the idea that children should be allowed to run around outside, walk to school, get boo-boos, and generally be kids without someone calling the cops on them or their parents. I know, I know. Groundbreaking.

Being a free-range parent doesn’t mean disregarding safety; it just means it’s up to you to set reasonable guardrails. So when my toddler got old enough to start riding her tricycle and skateboard around the neighborhood, I got her a Triple 8 helmet to keep that precious noggin in one piece. (You get only one, after all.) The helmets are high-quality and easily adjustable. They also look good, which should minimize futile protestations about the dorkiness of safety accessories. The Lil 8 Kids Helmet starts at $55.99—a bit spendy compared to a department store bike helmet, but it’s dual-certified for bike and skate safety.

Think about it this way: It’s cheaper than a Switch 2 or a trip to the emergency room. —C.J. Ciaramella, reporter

Shop Triple 8

For the person who really, really needs to log off:

“Just breathe.” It’s a common and simple admonition, but you may have a loved one or three for whom that is much easier said than done in the middle of a stressful moment. That’s where the Shift necklace from Komuso Design comes in.

The Shift is inspired by 17th-century monks who used small flutes to steady their breathing and find inner peace. When anxiety hits, the necklace naturally slows your exhale, helping your body relax almost instantly.

I’ve had mine for a while, and it’s become one of my favorite little grounding rituals. It’s helped me manage stress, fight burnout, sleep more easily, and even ease cravings. As someone who took up vaping to quit smoking cigarettes, I can attest that this thing has calmed my nerves more times than I can count. Who wouldn’t want a fashion-forward antidote to anxiety? —Eddie Marshall, junior designer

Buy the Shift starting at $79

Looking for a gift for the chronically online person in your life? Consider getting them what is arguably the foil to a keyboard and warrioring fingers: a set of knitting needles and some yarn. I’ll admit that it might sound uncool. But grandma hobbies are undergoing a serious renaissance, and it’s deeply rewarding to develop the skills necessary to make your own unique accessories and clothing. (Plus, busy hands can’t doomscroll.)

The age-old wisdom is that an aspiring knitter should start by making a scarf. A secret: That’s a surefire way to bore someone out of the hobby. Instead, I recommend a washcloth as a first project. It’s a cheap way to give someone an introduction to knitting, so the risk is low: A few balls of Lily Sugar ‘N Cream 100 percent cotton yarn and a pair of Clover Size 7 bamboo knitting needles won’t run you more than $25 at your local craft store or online. The project can be completed in just a few evenings, there are countless free patterns and tutorials online, and mistakes basically don’t matter. A washcloth with holes or wonky edges still scrubs.

And hey, if you’re lucky, your giftee might be inspired to make you something special next Christmas. After all, your local yarn store—yes, those exist—says a lot about the true miracle that is international trade. I’m currently knitting a striped sweater using merino wool yarn produced in Italy, stainless steel needles made in China, and a pattern written by a Danish designer. It’s incredible that today’s crafters can access materials made in dozens of countries, let alone afford them. Besides, with our current volatile tariff regime, who knows how much these things will cost next Christmas. —Fiona Harrigan, deputy managing editor

Shop Lily Sugar ‘N Cream

Buy Clover knitting needles for $6.29

For the one who insists on carrying an inexplicable number of things:

Last year I recommended LA Police Gear’s tactical jeans—a steal at just 45 bucks—as a tasteful alternative to cargo apparel. Depending on whom you ask, the latter may or may not be a hate crime. But you need not feel limited after setting those old, conspicuously pocketed pants ablaze. There are plenty of options to expand your wardrobe, especially if you’re willing to shell out a bit more cash.

From snowy and certifiably-based Finland, the tactical jeans from Varusteleka were arguably designed for this very purpose: manufactured to have a utility that rivals military field pants but with the subtlety of a pair of denim. There are 10 pockets—beautiful in their discretion—so I can finally give my treasure trove of everyday carry items (toted largely for notional benefit) their own separate pockets. A dream come true.

Whether that’s worth somewhere between double and triple the cost of last year’s pick is entirely subjective. If you lean toward the affirmative, don’t worry: The company’s website is available in English, so you don’t need to speak Snow Elf to snag a pair. Ah, the beauty of cultural exchange. Perkele! —Ian Keyser, audio engineer

Buy Varusteleka tactical jeans for $118

The five-gallon bucket is an underappreciated invention: mass-produced to be cheap, reliable, interchangeable, and ubiquitous. By itself, it might be a disappointing holiday gift (unless you’re getting me a gift; I’d be happy to add another bucket to the stack). But we’re not all me. So let me introduce you to the world of five-gallon bucket accessories—made to maximize the power of the most iconic open container. Seats. Carrying straps. Dividers. The more you know.

My recommendation is the Bucket Boss tool organizer, aptly named The Bucketeer, for the handy one(s) in your life.

It immediately became my go-to receptacle for DIY projects. (Toolbag who?) Old standbys like screwdrivers and wrenches go in the pockets, leaving space inside for project-specific tools like a saw, power drill, or six-pack of beer. Such versatility.

Although it’s marketed for tools, it would also work great for crafts, camping necessities, and grilling supplies. One has to marvel at how consumer capitalism keeps making simple objects more useful. —Adam Sullivan, digital marketing specialist

Buy The Bucketeer for $16.48

For the one who has enough stuff—or doesn’t need your input:

We all have that loved one who is, practically speaking, impossible to shop for. They have clothes. They have tools. They have blenders.

I can relate. A few Mother’s Days ago, as I was struggling to generate gift ideas for my mother dearest, her love language dawned on me: quality time, especially when it comes to her children. So why not give her a mother-daughter trip? Not only was I confident she would appreciate it more than another blender, but it would give me a chance to log some rest and relaxation time, as well. And this time of year, that’s sorely needed.

Since we’re living in a technological golden age, you have a free travel agent. For the last two years, I used ChatGPT to plan a pair of fabulous trips: a hiking trip to Banff National Park in Canada and a jaunt to Peru to see Machu Picchu. For budget-conscious travelers, you don’t need to gift a flashy, finance-depleting experience. Just ask your favorite artificial intelligence sidekick to get creative with inexpensive options. Let ChatGPT (or Claude, or whoever!) help you explore the world with your loved ones. You won’t regret it.

And remember: As you and yours walk through TSA en route to your next adventure, you aren’t required to allow them to take a picture of you. The government shouldn’t be tracking us more than they already do. —Natalie Dowzicky, managing editor of video and podcasts

Plan a trip with ChatGPT

Perhaps you have an animal lover on your Christmas list who would murder you for making the classic faux pas of gifting them a pet. (Understandable.) So instead of inviting another critter into their home, harness the power of effective altruism and spark some animal-related joy with FarmKind—a nonprofit that has done its homework to identify the best charities working to end factory farming and reduce animal suffering.

You can split your donation among all the charities FarmKind supports or direct it to a specific organization that you think would resonate most with the recipient. FarmKind-supported nonprofits are creating innovative and cruelty-free food options, working with companies to improve their animal welfare standards, and pioneering new and more humane food systems. And, since FarmKind’s operating costs are covered by philanthropists, every dollar you give goes straight to the organizations that are directly helping animals. They’ll even tell you how many animals your gift helps save.

Don’t have an animal obsessive in your life? Although that may make me question your social circle a bit, you can apply this gift idea to philanthropic ventures of any kind that would resonate with your loved ones’ particular soft spots. Print a one-pager with details on the charity (or charities) you chose, wrap it in a shirt box, and place it under the tree. This gift will go a lot further than whatever Tommy Bahama apparel they were expecting. —Kelvey Vander Hart, communications specialist

Give with FarmKind

Ask ChatGPT about great charities

This year, my holiday gift recommendation is simple, elegant, and fully compliant with even the strictest minimalist-libertarian gifting norms: money.

Cash is the ultimate expression of consumer sovereignty. It requires no assembly, no batteries, and most importantly, no presumption that I know better than you what will maximize your utility. Hayek warned us about the fatal conceit; I’m merely applying his warning to holiday shopping. Why risk gifting someone a sweater that fits like price controls when I can hand them a medium of exchange and let the market work its magic?

But criminally underrated is that money, unlike most presents, doesn’t impose future obligations. It won’t guilt you into wearing it, reading it, watering it, charging it, or finding a place to display it when you haven’t even solved that conundrum with last year’s artisanal coaster set. It’s the only gift fully compatible with the non-aggression principle: no coercion, no nudging, no passive aggressive “I thought this was your style.”

The classic counter: “But cash is so impersonal!” For a rebuttal, we can look to Milton Friedman, who reminded us that “there’s no such thing as a free lunch.” Indeed. Which is why money is the perfect gift. —Veronique de Rugy, contributing editor

Can’t help you with this one

The post The 2025 Libertarian Gift Guide: 28 Great Ideas for Apocalypse Preppers, Boozers, Self-Improvers—and More appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/Y3sUZPo
via IFTTT

West Yorkshire police arrested Jon Richelieu-Booth at his home after someone complained about a LinkedIn photo he posted of himself legally holding a gun while on vacation in Florida. He spent the night in a cell. Police initially cited allegations of possessing a firearm with intent to cause fear of violence, as well as stalking. Those charges were quickly dropped, but then he was accused of a public order offense related to a different social media post, though police never specified which one. After months of legal trouble, the Crown Prosecution Service dropped that charge too.

The post Brickbat: Vacation Photos appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/wliDpT5
via IFTTT

The post Open Thread appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/UJkI8CK
via IFTTT

I have a riddle for you. If we call a drug smuggler a combatant, how many combatants died when SEAL Team 6 killed 11 men on a cocaine boat near Venezuela on September 2?

Zero, because calling a drug smuggler a combatant does not make him a combatant. That reality goes to the heart of the morally and legally bankrupt justification for President Donald Trump’s bloodthirsty anti-drug campaign in the Caribbean and the eastern Pacific, which began on September 2 and so far has killed 87 people in 22 attacks.

The September 2 operation is newly controversial because it included a follow-up missile strike that blew apart two defenseless survivors of the initial attack as they clung to the smoldering wreckage. But all these attacks entail the use of deadly force in circumstances that do not justify it.

Trump conflates drug smuggling with violent aggression, saying it amounts to “an armed attack against the United States” that requires a lethal military response. According to that counterintuitive theory, suspected cocaine smugglers are “combatants” who can be killed at will, and their vessels pose a “threat” to national security that can be neutralized only by completely destroying them.

In reality, Americans want cocaine, and criminal organizations are happy to supply it. The government does not approve of that trade, which it has long sought to suppress by interdicting cocaine and arresting smugglers.

Trump, who accurately calls that approach “totally ineffective,” thinks killing suspected drug couriers, from a distance and in cold blood, will achieve the impossible goal of preventing Americans from consuming politically disfavored intoxicants. He is wrong about that. But even if he were right, the goal of disrupting and deterring drug smuggling would not justify summarily executing criminal suspects without legal authorization or any semblance of due process.

That is why Trump claims the U.S. military is at war with “narco-terrorists.” But the “non-international armed conflict” that Trump perceives does not fit the legal definition of that term and has not been recognized by Congress.

The resulting violence is so one-sided that the government’s lawyers claim blowing up suspected drug boats does not qualify as “hostilities” under the War Powers Resolution because U.S. personnel face no plausible risk of casualties. So we are talking about an “armed conflict” that does not involve “hostilities” yet somehow does involve enemy “combatants,” albeit combatants who are not actually engaged in combat.

The debate about the September 2 attack underlines that point. Adm. Frank M. Bradley, who commanded the operation, reportedly told lawmakers the boat was heading for Suriname—i.e., away from the United States—with cocaine ultimately destined for Europe or Africa.

Even if you accept the preposterous premise that transporting cocaine is equivalent to an “armed attack,” it is hard to see how this boat posed any sort of threat to the United States. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth nevertheless deemed it a legitimate military target, and he says Bradley “made the correct decision to ultimately sink the boat and eliminate the threat.”

According to Hegseth, that “threat” remained even after the capsized bow was all that remained of the boat. Bradley decided he had to kill the two helpless, unarmed survivors because he thought they could have tried to recover whatever cocaine might have remained on the wreck.

Sen. Tom Cotton (R–Ark.), chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, avers that the flailing men were “trying to flip the boat” so they “could stay in the fight.” But there was no “fight” to stay in because neither those men nor the nine others were attacking U.S. military personnel or any other American targets.

Although the Defense Department’s Law of War Manual says “orders to fire upon the shipwrecked would be clearly illegal,” Cotton claims the survivors were not truly “shipwrecked” because part of their boat remained afloat and may have contained salvageable cocaine. The logic of Trump’s murderous anti-drug strategy effectively blesses what the law of war theoretically prohibits.

© Copyright 2025 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

The post Trump's Word Games Can't Conceal the Murderous Reality of His Anti-Drug Strategy appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/K2NU6Xn
via IFTTT

Professor Xiao Wang, director of University of Virginia’s Supreme Court Clinic, litigated the case of Ames v. Ohio Youth Services. The thrust of the case was quite simple, and intuitively appealing: Heterosexual employees alleging discrimination based on sexual orientation have the same burdens as homosexual employees alleging such discrimination. Such symmetry is built into our antidiscrimination laws, which is why the laws ban discrimination based on “race” or “sex” or “sexual orientation” and not “against people of color” or “women” or “people who identify as LQBTQ.” Not surprisingly, the Court reasserted this principle in a unanimous opinion.

While the case was pending, however, Wang and his students were subjected to a campaign of harassment by some of his faculty colleagues and other students. You can watch a video of him recounted what transpired, and inspired the title of this blog post, here.

The post "Our Job is to Teach the Children, Not be the Children" appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/KnhYbJu
via IFTTT

Today, the UnPopulist published my article “Nationalism Is Driving the Neo Right’s Virulent Antisemitic Turn.” It builds on my earlier Volokh Conspiracy post on the same topic, and also on 2024 National Affairs article “The Case Against Nationalism” (coauthored with Alex Nowrasteh). Originally, Alex and I were also going to coauthor this new article. But, after seeing my draft, Alex said he had little to add to it, though he very much agrees with the thesis. I am nonetheless grateful to Alex for his help in thinking through this topic, and for insights derived from his extensive expertise on it. Here is an excerpt from today’s article:

American conservatism has been rocked by the rise of “Groyper” antisemitism within its ranks, roiling both official Republican Party organizations and some of the right’s most influential intellectual organs….. Even now, the debate over this issue has largely overlooked the source of antisemitism’s rise in conservative circles: the political right’s increasing turn towards nationalism.

Nationalism doesn’t just historically correlate with bigotry—it consistently drives antisemitism and other racial and ethnic prejudices. Indeed, nationalism intensifies preexisting antisemitic impulses. To the degree that today’s conservatives decide to embrace—or even just make peace with—nationalism and dispense with the universalist liberal principles of the American Founding, they will find it difficult to impossible to stem the spread of antisemitism in their midst….

In October, Politico published an explosive report disclosing a selection of vile antisemitic and pro-Nazi messages from leaked group chats written by leaders of Young Republican chapters and various state GOP politicians and staffers. Later that month, Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts mired his organization in the controversy when he publicly defended prominent far-right podcaster Tucker Carlson—a longtime promoter of antisemitic ideas and conspiracy theories—after Carlson conducted a fawning interview promoting Nick Fuentes, an even more notorious antisemitic influencer who openly defends the Nazis….

The recent resurgence of right-wing antisemitism is rooted in the conservative movement’s turn towards nationalism. It is no accident that it emerged at the same time as the political right—led by Trump—has increasingly defined American identity not in terms of universal liberal values but in terms of ethnic and racial identity. Many in the movement privilege native-born white Christians over other groups—and often even privilege “heritage Americans,” defined as those (primarily whites) who can trace their ancestry in the U.S. over many generations all the way back to the Civil War or earlier.

Nationalist political movements—defined here as those that hold that the main purpose of government is to advance the interests of the nation’s dominant ethnic group—have a long history of antisemitism and other bigotry….

A movement that exalts the interests of the ethnic and cultural majority and believes that these interests are the true foundation of the nation is inherently prone to viewing ethnic and religious minorities with suspicion and hostility. That may be especially true of minority groups with a large diaspora in many countries, a history that is perversely used against them as a reason to doubt their allegiance to the nations they live in.

These prejudices are exacerbated by Jews’ disproportionate success in the commercial and intellectual worlds. Nationalists tend to believe such disproportionately successful minorities are encroaching on the rightful domain of the majority group. Such suspicion is heightened by the zero-sum worldview shared by most nationalists, under which one ethnic or racial group can only gain at the expense of others. Thus, if Jews are disproportionately successful, it must be at the expense of the ethnic majority.

Resentments are heightened by nationalists’ historic predilection for conspiracy theories. If the ethnic majority has been denied its supposedly rightful position of dominance, nationalists readily assume that the cause must be some nefarious plot.

Later in the article, I explain how the best antidote to nationalism is embracing the universalist principles of the American Founding:

In his resignation statement from the Heritage board, Robert George urged Heritage to be guided by the principles of the Declaration of Independence, especially the idea “that each and every member of the human family, irrespective of race, ethnicity, religion, or anything else; … is ‘created equal’ and ‘endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights.'” George is right. Unlike nationalist movements focused on ethnic particularism, the American Founding was based on universal liberal principles…..

In his General Orders to the Continental Army, issued on the occasion of the end of the Revolutionary War in 1783, George Washington stated that one of the reasons the United States was founded was to create “an Asylum for the poor and oppressed of all nations and religions.” Other leading Founding Fathers—including James Madison and Thomas Jefferson—expressed similar sentiments.

Washington sounded a similar theme in his famous 1790 letter to the congregation of the Rhode Island Touro Synagogue, in which he avowed that the United States has “an enlarged and liberal policy,” under which “All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship,” and that the U.S. government “gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance.” America, he emphasized, went beyond “mere toleration” of Jews to granting them full equality. It could do so because American identity was based on universal liberal principles, not ethnic or religious particularism.

As noted in the article, there is also troubling anti-Semitism on the far left (which I previously wrote about here). That in no way justifies the right-wing nationalist variety (and vice versa).

The post My New UnPopulist Article on How Nationalism is Driving the Growth of anti-Semitism on the Right appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/BveJ7Wu
via IFTTT

Anti-SLAPP statutes allow defendants who are sued based on their speech on matters of public concern to quickly challenge the sufficiency of plaintiffs’ claims. They are important tools in fighting legally meritless libel suits and other attempts to restrict legally protected speech. But they only apply to claims that are indeed based on such speech, and not claims that are based on non-speech conduct.

A short excerpt from yesterday’s long opinion by California Court of Appeal Justice Allison Danner, joined by Justices Mary Greenwood and Daniel Bromberg, in Khalil v. Steiner, applies this distinction. The plaintiffs—a young woman, her apparently 13-year-old sister, and their sister-in-law—”constructed a ‘Free Palestine’ sign out of shrubs and seaweed on a sand dune near Sand City known as ‘Scribble Hill,'” where it was visible from Highway 1 and the pedestrian path below the dune. Defendant, “who was cycling on the path, stopped his bicycle, climbed the dune, and began dismantling the sign while engaging in a heated verbal exchange with the young women.”

Each side accused the other of “supporting terrorism,” and the women began recording the encounter on a cell phone. They retreated down the dune and kicked sand on Steiner’s bicycle. Steiner followed, grabbed the cell phone …—allegedly also grabbing and restraining [one of the plaintiffs] in the process—and threw the phone toward the street, breaking it. After Steiner departed, plaintiffs reported the incident to the police and posted an edited version of the cell phone video to their social media.

Plaintiffs sued Steiner asserting causes of action for negligence, assault, battery, and violations of the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act (Bane Act) (Civ. Code, § 52.1) and the Ralph Civil Rights Act (Ralph Act) (Civ. Code, § 51.7). Steiner brought an anti-SLAPP motion to strike the complaint ….

The court concluded that the anti-SLAPP statute [Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16] didn’t apply here, because the claim was based on Steiner’s alleged physical conduct, and not speech on matters of public interest:

Section 425.16(e)(3) defines protected activity to include “any written or oral statement or writing made in a place open to the public or a public forum in connection with an issue of public interest.” Section 425.16(e)(4) defines protected activity to include “conduct in furtherance of the exercise of the constitutional right of petition or the constitutional right of free speech in connection with a public issue or an issue of public interest.” …

We agree with the trial court’s assessment that “much of” Steiner’s “speech and activity in taking down the message on the sand dune is protected under the First Amendment.” Steiner’s initial conduct during the encounter at Scribble Hill consisted of (1) engaging in a heated oral exchange with three individuals about their public display of support for the Palestinian cause during a time of heightened public awareness and debate over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and (2) physically disassembling the sticks and shrubs that made up the disputed message.

The timing of these acts shortly after the October 7, 2023 attack by Hamas on Israel, the publicly accessible and highly visible location on Scribble Hill, and the subject matter of the dispute, place Steiner’s oral statements and conduct dismantling plaintiffs’ sign within the statutory framework for “statement[s] … made in a place open to the public or a public forum in connection with an issue of public interest.” Further, the close nexus between Steiner’s exercise of his right of free speech and the asserted issue of public interest (disagreeing and attempting to undo the “‘Free Palestine'” message visible to passersby) fulfills the “‘in connection with’ requirement.” …] But Steiner must not only show that his conduct falls within one of the categories set out in section 425.16(e), but that each challenged “cause of action arises from that protected conduct.” …

The complaint alleged that on the date in question, Steiner “w[as] negligent in that [he] carelessly failed to exercise due care by confronting and engaging in a verbal confrontation with plaintiffs as alleged herein.” The cause of action further “reallege[d] and incorporate[d] by reference” the allegations previously set forth. These allegations included that Steiner “approached the plaintiffs and called them terrorists,” “accused [them] of being members or supporters of Hamas” and of “killing babies and be-heading children,” “started violently dismantling their sign and charged directly at the girls while continuing to threaten them,” and “accosted [the 13-year-old plaintiff], grabbed her around the neck and waist, and threw her cell phone on the bike path.” …

Construing the allegations of the complaint liberally (as we must) for purposes of evaluating the facts upon which the negligence claim is based, we read the negligence claim alleging a failure to exercise due care “by confronting and engaging in a verbal confrontation with plaintiffs as alleged herein” as based upon the full range of conduct described in the confrontation…. The declarations submitted in opposition to and in support of the motion characterize differently the nature and intensity of the words that were spoken and Steiner’s physical conduct but generally reinforce our conclusion that the confrontation encompassed more than a heated exchange of words….

As our Supreme Court has explained, “a claim may be struck only if the speech or petitioning activity itself is the wrong complained of, and not just evidence of liability or a step leading to some different act for which liability is asserted.” “A cause of action may be ‘triggered by’ or associated with a protected act, but it does not necessarily mean the cause of action arises from that act.”

As alleged, Steiner’s expressions of disagreement with plaintiffs’ message by disputing and dismantling the sign did not occur in a vacuum but unfolded concurrently with alleged unlawful conduct comprising physical aggression and oral intimidation….. Plaintiffs might not be “entitled to legal protection against” a passerby engaging in offensive speech while criticizing a political protest message, but they are entitled to legal protection from allegedly threatening and intimidating conduct that escalates into a physical attack….

The court held much the same as to the claims under the Bane Act (which allows lawsuits “against a person, ‘whether or not acting under color of law,’ who ‘interferes by threat, intimidation, or coercion … with the exercise or enjoyment … of rights secured by the Constitution”) and the Ralph Act (which provides that “All persons within the jurisdiction of this state have the right to be free from any violence, or intimidation by threat of violence, committed against their persons or property because of political affiliation, or on account of” “sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, or immigration status”):

The alleged conduct giving rise to plaintiffs’ Ralph Act claim is unambiguously the commission of “a violent act” against plaintiffs and their property…. Furthermore, plaintiffs have alleged that this conduct was substantially motivated by Steiner’s perception of plaintiffs as being Palestinian or of Palestinian national origin, as also evidenced by [plaintiffs’] declarations that as Steiner approached and dismantled the sign, he accused them of being “‘peak Palestinian'” and of supporting terrorism and Hamas….

Given the nature of the alleged conduct underlying the cause of action, Steiner’s contention that the claim is based solely on political speech and expressive conduct is unpersuasive. Steiner has failed to show that the challenged cause of action arises from his protected conduct debating plaintiffs’ ideology and attempting to erase their public protest message, as opposed to his alleged acts of physical aggression. Put differently, Steiner’s expressions of political disagreement and identification of plaintiffs as Muslim or Palestinian women did not give rise to the Ralph Act claim but are arguably revelatory of his motive for attacking them….

And the court held the same as to plaintiffs’ assault claim, which was based on Steiner’s allegedly threatening conduct. (Steiner hadn’t challenged the trial court’s finding that the anti-SLAPP statute didn’t apply to plaintiffs’ battery claims.)

The post California Anti-SLAPP Statute Doesn't Apply to Claim of Politically Motivated Threatening Conduct appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/JqhGau8
via IFTTT

From Fifth Circuit Judge Priscilla Richman, joined by Judge Irma Ramirez, in today’s Evans v. Garza:

During a debate by lawmakers at the Texas Capitol in 2023, Michelle Evans tweeted a photograph of a transgender (biologically male) politician washing their hands in the women’s restroom. Evans surrendered her cell phone to police after she learned the Travis County District Attorney, José Garza, was investigating whether her tweet violated Texas Penal Code § 21.15(b)….

Evans sued, seeking a preliminary injunction against any such prosecution, but the Fifth Circuit panel said no. It concluded that the relevant provision, § 21.15(b)(2)—”A person commits an offense if, without the other person’s consent and with intent to invade the privacy of the other person, the person … photographs or by videotape or other electronic means records, broadcasts, or transmits a visual image of another person in a place in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy”—wasn’t likely to be unconstitutionally overbroad:

Evans argues that the statute is overbroad, but “[t]he overbreadth doctrine is ‘strong medicine’ that is used ‘sparingly and only as a last resort.'” Evans must “demonstrate from the text of [the statute] and from actual fact that a substantial number of instances exist in which the Law cannot be applied constitutionally.”

By contrast, circumstances in which a prosecution under that subsection would likely be constitutional readily come to mind. For example, it is highly unlikely, to say the least, that there is a First Amendment right to distribute, without their consent, images of a person’s genitalia or other anatomy (whether they be an adult, infant, pre-teen, teen) while utilizing bathroom facilities.

It is also far from clear that there is a First Amendment right to capture and distribute an image, without their permission, of a fully clothed adult while in a public bathroom. Think of a celebrity, for example, who ducks into a women’s bathroom to avoid paparazzi or overzealous fans. What if the celebrity were in the restroom simply to relieve and refresh themselves? Is there a constitutional right to follow and photograph that person in a restroom when they are seeking privacy? Is any citizen, celebrity or not, fair game for photos or videos while in a restroom? Does the fact that a person is an elected official change that equation? The law is certainly not clear that politicians may be pursued, even in a public restroom, for the purpose of obtaining and publicizing their image.

And the court also held that the law wasn’t unconstitutional as applied to Evans’ behavior:

Evans maintains that when the subject of the photograph is “not in a private area of the bathroom and knows they are subject to public view,” specifically, when they are “fully clothed, at a sink, washing their hands,” others in the restroom have a First Amendment right to photograph the subject, and Evans has a First Amendment right to distribute that photograph. But we cannot say it is likely that the statute, as it existed at the time of the incident, is unconstitutional as applied to Evans….

[T]he statute protects compelling government interests because “the rights to personal seclusion, bodily integrity, and sexual privacy are substantial rights; and the state has a compelling interest in protecting those rights from highly offensive or ‘intolerable’ attack.” [And t]he statute’s heightened intent requirement ensures that the statute is narrowly tailored to achieve that compelling interest. A defendant only violates the statute if they act “with intent to invade the privacy of [an]other person” when photographing or videotaping another person, or promoting such recorded content of that other person.

[A past Texas appellate decision] “construed the intent-to-invade-privacy element” such that “the statutory restriction is limited to ‘intolerable’ invasions because it reaches only photographs and transmissions that either in the manner of their creation or their subject matter would be considered highly offensive to a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities.” For Evans to be convicted, then, the prosecution would have to prove that she acted with this culpable mental state—a high bar that will prevent conviction when no subject matter or manner of creation “highly offensive to a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities” is involved….

Judge Andrew Oldham dissented:

Michelle Evans retweeted a picture of a fully clothed man washing his hands in the women’s bathroom at the Texas State Capitol. For that purported sin, Travis County District Attorney Jose Garza opened a criminal investigation and threatened to bring the awesome weight of the County’s prosecutorial machinery down on Ms. Evans….

The dissent reasoned that the statute “cannot be constitutionally applied to Evans,” because in this case, “the statute unconstitutionally suppresses political speech”:

The subject of the photograph was a transgender activist and candidate for public office in Texas. Both Evans and the candidate were at the Capitol to attend a debate about S.B. 14—a bill designed to protect children from experimental medical procedures. In the photograph, the man is merely washing his hands at the sink, fully clothed and in full view of anyone inside the restroom.

In the context of this public policy debate, the retweet of a photo depicting an activist and candidate using an opposite-sex restroom is “speech concerning public affairs,” which “occupies the highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values, and is entitled to special protection.” And as applied to Evans, § 21.15(b) criminalizes that core political speech, on the flimsy pretense of protecting privacy interests that are irrelevant where (as here) nothing remotely private is divulged in the photograph.

In fact, the entirety of the incident—from the activist’s presence in the opposite-sex bathroom, to the picture, to Evans’s retweet of it—is a matter of public concern arising from a public debate about public policy in a public forum for lawmaking. Everything about it is the opposite of private. So as applied to the retweeted photograph, the statute fails to employ “the least restrictive means of achieving a compelling state interest.”

In response, the majority reasons that the “statute’s heightened intent requirement ensures that the statute is narrowly tailored to achieve [a] compelling interest” in privacy. The highest authority on Texas criminal law, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, has not yet interpreted the intent requirement. So, we do not know what the intent requirement will be. And that uncertainty exacerbates the constitutional problem by chilling speech by unsure would-be speakers.

But insofar as we have to guess, it should be obvious that DA Garza will not be able to prove that Evans had the “intent to invade the privacy of the other person.” It should be equally obvious that retweeting the image does not represent an “intolerable invasion” of the transgender activist’s privacy. All of us use sinks in public buildings all the time—in airports, restaurants, sports stadiums, and other public accommodations. In Austin, the ever-progressive capital of Texas, the sinks in some restaurants and bars are not even in the bathrooms—they’re in public, mixed-sex areas for all the world to see.

Is there a person on earth who thinks their conduct at a public sink enjoys privacy protections? If a woman confesses to her friend at the public sink that she has a gambling problem or wore blackface in college, is that conversation somehow privacy-protected? If a man discloses that he’s carrying a handgun in violation of a bar’s concealed-carry prohibition while washing his hands, is that act protected? What if a woman pulls marijuana from her purse and puts it on the sink?

What other privacy interest could a person have when standing fully clothed at a public sink that they do not have when standing fully clothed in other parts of the public building? Does a transgender activist have some special privacy interest in using a sink that you and I do not have? If so, what legal basis is there for affording special super-privacy protections to transgender activists?

Thus, there is no way that DA Garza could prove that Evans had some specific intent to commit an intolerable invasion of anyone’s privacy in retweeting a picture as part of a public policy debate. Still, an acquittal would do nothing to remedy or compensate for the significant chilling of speech Evans has suffered. Evans is therefore likely to succeed on the merits of her as-applied challenge….

And the dissent also argued that “Evans also may have a powerful overbreadth challenge,” and that the case should have been remanded for further factfinding about “[whether] a substantial number of § 21.15(b)(2)’s applications [will] concern photos like the one Evans retweeted, where the person depicted is fully dressed and merely washing his hands” or “where the person depicted is a public figure engaged in political advocacy in the People’s House.” And the dissent closed with this:

Free speech is a fragile thing. While prior generations observed despotic speech codes across an Iron Curtain, the modern free thinker needn’t look so far or so far back. Take the United Kingdom today, for example. By one count, the birthplace of Bentham and Mill now arrests thirty citizens a day over offensive social media posts. And lest Uncle Sam look askance at John Bull, more than a few are clamoring for similar restrictions on this side of the pond, too. See S.B. 771, 2025 Cal. Assemb. (Cal. 2025) (providing for civil penalties “up to $1 million” for hosting so-called hate speech).

With free speech in a tenuous balance, courts do the agora no good by playing fast and loose with Fed Courts doctrines. The least we could do is remand Evans’s case for the district court to weigh the preliminary injunction factors in the first instance….

Anthony J. Nelson and Amy Stoeckl Ybarra (Travis County Attorney’s Office) represent the State.

The post No Injunction Against Prosecution for Taking Photo of Transgender Politician Washing Hands in Women's Restroom appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/Pf5Ijl2
via IFTTT

President Donald Trump was widely mocked for claiming “we save 25,000 American lives” every time the U.S. military blows up a suspected drug boat in the Caribbean or the eastern Pacific. Undeterred by the well-deserved ridicule, the president is still pushing that preposterous premise, which implies that he has prevented 650,000 drug-related deaths by ordering attacks that so far have destroyed 26 vessels in 22 operations.

“Every boat that you see get blown up, we save 25,000, on average, lives, 25,000 lives,” Trump averred during a Cabinet meeting last week. On Monday, he reiterated that “every single boat we shoot out, on average, we save 25,000 American lives.”

The BBC dryly notes that “the White House has not explained how it arrived at this figure.” But it seems to be the product of several empirical and logical fallacies.

First, Trump erroneously thinks the targeted boats, which would have been transporting cocaine produced mainly in Colombia, were carrying fentanyl, which generally enters the United States in small packages carried over land across the border with Mexico. “The boats get hit, and you see that fentanyl all over the ocean,” he claimed at a press conference in October. Trump’s confusion is relevant because fentanyl accounts for most drug-related deaths in the United States. Last year, according to estimates from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), fentanyl was implicated in more than 49,000 drug deaths, 60 percent of the total, while cocaine was detected in about 22,500 cases, around 28 percent of the time.

Second, Trump imagines, contrary to more than a century of experience with drug interdiction, that traffickers do not compensate for intercepted shipments by sending more. When drugs are seized or destroyed, he seems to think, the total supply available to Americans is reduced by that amount. If that were true, it would be hard to understand why Trump says drug interdiction is “totally ineffective.”

Third, Trump assumes that any given amount of drugs would be evenly divided into lethal doses, each of which would be consumed in one sitting by a different person. Attorney General Pam Bondi relied on the same plainly unrealistic assumption when she absurdly claimed that the Trump administration had “saved…258 million lives” during its first 100 days by intercepting fentanyl shipments.

Bondi’s claim epitomized the illogic of the war on drugs, and Trump implicitly contradicted it when he described drug interdiction as “totally ineffective”—his rationale for resorting to summary execution of suspected smugglers. If the traditional approach of seizing drugs and arresting smugglers was “totally ineffective,” it did not save any lives, let alone prevent three-quarters of the U.S. population from succumbing to fentanyl overdoses, which is what Bondi suggested would have happened but for the Trump administration’s interdiction efforts during its first few months.

Trump’s claim about the lives saved by blowing up drug boats is modest compared to Bondi’s jaw-dropping assertion. But given the powerful financial incentive for delivering drugs to American consumers and the many ways of doing that, there is no reason to think his lethal version of drug interdiction will be any more effective than the less violent strategy that prevailed prior to September 2. And although Bondi’s hyperbole would be hard to match, Trump is still claiming, with a straight face, that he has already prevented eight times the number of U.S. drug deaths recorded in 2024 (about 82,000, per the CDC).

These bogus numbers would be merely amusing if Trump were not deploying them to justify a policy of killing suspected cocaine couriers, at a distance and in cold blood, without legal authorization or any semblance of due process. Trump conflates drug smuggling with violent aggression, saying it amounts to “an armed attack against the United States” that requires a lethal military response. His meretritious math aims to bolster that reality-defying description. He hopes his extravagant claims about hypothetical deaths prevented by his bloodthirsty anti-drug strategy will distract the public from the actual deaths he is ordering.

The post Trump Is Still Claiming He Saves '25,000 American Lives' When He Blows Up a Suspected Drug Boat appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/NEi802h
via IFTTT

Justice Barrett asked several good questions yesterday at oral argument in Trump v. Slaughter, which deserve a further response.

First, Justice Barrett asked Solicitor General D. John Sauer whether the Court should rest its holding in this case on the allegedly narrower grounds of removal as flowing from the Take Care Clause of Article II, Section III, or as being an incident of the Appointment Power, rather than holding that the Executive Power Vesting Clause confers the removal power.

The Take Care Clause argument overlooks the fact that the body of the Constitution confers what it calls “Power” only in a limited number of places: the three Vesting Clauses; the eighteen clauses that confer limited and enumerated ‘Powers’ on Congress in Article I, Section 8; and a few other places. There are, to be sure, other clauses that confer power elsewhere in the Constitution without using the word “Power,” like the New States Admission Clause, but they are few and far between. It would be textually odd for the removal power, which is a part of “The President’s Power to Execute the Laws”—a power that the President assuredly has—to be found in Article II, Section 3 as the fifth in a series of six duties that Article II, Section 3 imposes upon the President and that does not use the word “Power.”

Under the canon of construction noscitur a sociis, the meaning of a clause is illuminated by the company of the clauses with which it is linked. The Take Care Clause appears in between the Clauses imposing duties on the President to (1) receive ambassadors and other public ministers and (2) to commission officers. All of this is in a paragraph that begins by imposing on the President the duty to give State of the Union addresses and the duty to recommend to Congress new laws.

Imposing a duty on the President could be seen as granting the President a power, but the more plausible reading of Article II is that the Vesting Clause of Section 1 grants the President the sole but delegable power to execute the laws. Section 2 then explicates and adds content to this open-ended grant of the executive power, conferred on the President alone by Section 1, by making clear that the President is the Commander in Chief of our military and that he has the pardon power and that, with the Senate, he has the power to make treaties and appoint all officers of the United States and acting on his own to make recess appointments. Section 3 of Article II then imposes six duties on the President including the duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, a duty that the President can only fulfill because Section 1 of Article II has already conferred upon him the executive power. And Section 4 makes it clear that Presidents and Vice Presidents, unlike British Monarchs, are subject to impeachment.

The Take Care Clause descends from a clause in the English Bill of Rights of 1689, which was understood as taking away a power originally claimed by King James II that he could suspend or dispense with an Act of Parliament. English kings continued to remove officers long after the enactment of the Bill of Rights of 1689. The Take Care Clause’s original Eighteenth Century meaning was that the President had no power to suspend or dispense with enacted statutes at will. There is nothing in the original Eighteenth Century history of the Take Care Clause that even remotely suggests that that Clause was a source of the removal power.

In contrast, as I explain in my amicus brief in Trump v. Slaughter, with former Attorneys General Ed Meese and Michael Mukasey, Presidents Washington, Adams, and Jefferson and Congress, in the Decision of 1789, all saw the Executive Power Vesting Clause as being the source of the President’s removal power. Looking for the removal power in the Take Care Clause is like looking for an elephant in a mousehole.

The argument that the removal power is an incident of the Appointment Power is technically correct because the President can refuse to appoint one of his own nominees who the Senate has confirmed, but beyond that the argument seems implausible given recent Supreme Court precedent. It is an implausible source of the removal power because Senate confirmation is such a huge constraint on who the President can appoint. The repeal of the Tenure of Office Act, and the concession by Congress that it had always been unconstitutional, makes clear that presidential removals cannot be conditioned on Senate consent to the removal. Bowsher v. Synar, 478 U.S. 714 (1986), clearly established that Congress cannot be given any role at all in removing officers. Moreover, an argument that officers not appointed by the President but who are exercising executive power are not removable at will by the President is foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 591 U.S. 197 (2020), which says that all exercises of executive power must be made only by officials who are removable at will by the President.

To limit presidential removal power to only those officers whom the President appoints would leave vast numbers of inferior officers, who exercise executive power but who have been appointed by the Heads of Departments, unremovable by the President. This would hugely curtail presidential power over vast areas of the executive branch. It would also potentially force the President to fire a Head of Department, whom he likes, to get rid of an inferior officer who is misusing the executive power that Article II, Section 1 gives to the President alone. Again, the Decision of 1789 understanding of James Madison that the removal power is a part of the President’s “executive Power” seems more plausible.

It is the case that the Supreme Court correctly held in Ex Parte Hennen, 38 U.S. 230 (1839), that the officer who makes an appointment can remove the appointee at will. But it does not follow from that that a President cannot remove at will an inferior officer who was appointed by the Head of a Department but who is exercising executive power as was said in Seila Law. Moreover, although United States v. Perkins, 116 U.S. 483 (1886), held that Congress could limit the removal power of Heads of Departments as to inferior officers whom they appoint, it does not follow from that that Congress could also limit the President’s removal power at will when those inferior officers are exercising executive power. Again, Seila Law forecloses such an argument.

The case for presidential removal power under the Executive Power Vesting Clause of Article II is strengthened if one compares the Vesting Clauses of Articles I, II, and III with one another. It makes sense to compare the three Vesting Clauses with one another under the noscitur a sociis canon of construction that extremely similar clauses in a text should be construed according to the company they keep.

The Vesting Clause of Article I confers only all legislative powers “herein granted” whereas the Vesting Clause of Article II confers all of the executive power in on the President alone. Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S 654 (1988) (Scalia, J., dissenting). This suggests that the executive power includes some very limited inherent powers like the removal power, or the protective power recognized by In re Neagle, 135 U.S. 1 (1890). See also United States v. Midwest Oil, 236 U.S. 459 (1915) (presidential power to withdraw federal lands from public use); United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corporation, 299 U.S. 304 (1936) (presidential foreign affairs power). The lesson taught by the Vesting Clause of Article I as to the Vesting Clause of Article II is that the President has more executive power than merely that which the rest of Article II “herein grants.”

Turning to the Vesting Clause of Article III, we must note that it is the only grant of power to the federal courts in all of Article III. This strongly suggests that the similarly-worded Vesting Clause of Article II is a grant of power to the President, which is expanded on by Article II, Section 2; as to which duties are imposed in Article II, Section 3; and which is capped by Article II, Section 4 rendering the President and Vice President impeachable.

The Vesting Clause of Article III also confers the judicial power on both the Supreme Court and the inferior federal courts. This makes the fact that the Vesting Clause of Article II confers the executive power only on the President especially stark. The lesson taught by the Vesting Clause of Article III as to the Vesting Clause of Article II is that while the Supreme Court may reverse judgments of the inferior courts, it cannot remove the judges who sit on those courts. In contrast, the Vesting Clause of Article II does give the President the power to remove any officer who is exercising executive power.

It is hard to imagine, reading the three Vesting Clauses in a noscitur a sociis fashion, that executive branch officers inferior to the President cannot be stripped of their executive power, i.e., by firing and removal by the President.

Justice Barrett also asked counsel for Slaughter how old the idea of independent agencies is, while quite rightly expressing skepticism as to the Sinking Fund being an independent agency but wondering whether the Interstate Commerce Commission had been an independent agency since the late nineteenth century. In Shurtleff v. United States,189 U.S. 311 (1903), the Supreme Court held that the President could remove an officer of the United States at will even if the statutory office which he held provided for removal only in cases of “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” The court upheld presidential removal power in such cases, unless the statute expressly forbade it. For officers o be independent under Shurtleff, a statute would have to read that the officers were removable for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office, and for no other reason.“

Since the organic statute creating the Federal Trade Commission did not include this “and for no other reason” requirement of Shurtleff, the Supreme Court in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935), actually misread the FTC’s statute, which was enacted after the rule of Shurtleff had been proclaimed. The Supreme Court wrongly concluded in Humphrey’s Executor, that Congress had created the FTC to be an independent agency in a portion of its opinion in that case, which no one ever reads, and which is inconsistent with Shurtleff v. United States.

The Supreme Court in Humphrey’s Executor first misread the FTC organic act as creating an independent agency, and it then misread the Constitution as rendering a headless fourth branch of the government to be constitutional. Both parts of the Humphrey’s Executor opinion are wrong. At a minimum, the Supreme Court should have read the FTC Act to be constitutional, not unconstitutional. After 1935, Congress naturally rushed in to make more and more agencies independent, but the concept of independent agencies originated in 1935—146 years after the idea of presidential removal power had been liquidated as a core executive power.

Every President since 1935 has tried to assert as much control as he could over the headless fourth branch of the government, as is shown in Steven G. Calabresi & Christopher Yoo, The Unitary Executive: Presidential Power from Washington to Bush (2008). Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Brownlow Committee on administrative law reform called for eliminating independent agencies; President Truman endorsed an even more expansive reading of the Vesting Clause of Article II than the one argued for in Trump v. Slaughter in the Youngstown Steel Seizure Case, 343 U.S. 579 (1952); and President Eisenhower fired David Wiener from the War Claims Commission, as shown by Wiener v. United States, 357 U.S. 349 (1958), expressing opposition to Humphrey’s Executor. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) were each given additional powers by Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt, Richard M. Nixon, and Ronald Reagan to rein in the Headless Fourth Branch of the Government. The notion that Presidents have passively acquiesced in the stripping of their removal power over independent agencies is incorrect, as the Calabresi & Yoo book proves.

The Supreme Court should thus overrule Humphrey’s Executor in Trump v. Slaughter—but simply because the existence of independent agencies violates the Executive Power Vesting Clause of Article II. This argument is compelled by the text of the Constitution no matter what the history prior to 1789 was and no matter what the early practice under the Constitution was. Judge Robert H. Bork once said that “We are bound by the laws that dead people make, not by their unenacted opinions.” The Tempting of America (1990). There is quite simply no way to square a headless fourth branch of the government with the words of the Constitution, which create only three branches of government no matter what the pre-1789 history or the post-1789 practice suggests.

The post Some Answers to Justice Barrett's Questions in <i>Trump v. Slaugher</i> appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/Z1Ct84i
via IFTTT