Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
    • Reason TV
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • Just Asking Questions
    • Free Media
    • The Reason Interview
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Print Subscription
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Nanny State

Brooklyn Gals Ticketed for Eating Doughnuts at a Playground

Matt Welch | 6.7.2011 11:58 AM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL Add Reason to Google
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

They were technically in the wrong, and not the most sympathetic of characters, but this Gothamist story is a microcosm of a world gone at least slightly insane.

Link via the Twitter feed of Brett Ruiz.

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: The Rationale Behind Medicare Rationing

Matt Welch is an editor at large at Reason.

Nanny State
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL Add Reason to Google
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (135)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. Fist of Etiquette   15 years ago

    EVERYONE IS AFTER YOUR CHILDREN!

    or

    Cops zero in on doughnuts, pull out summons books while they're waiting for their cut.

    1. Pope Jimbo   15 years ago

      One of my neighbors is full on paranoid about all the rapists that are just waiting to abduct her daughters.

      Last summer she found out that someone had been texting some fairly risque messages to her 9th grade daughter. She paid one of the internet sites to do a reverse search on the number that was sending the texts and freaked when it turned out to be a 40 year old guy.

      Of course she called the cops who went into full suburban pedophile mode and stormed over to the perps house and hassled the shit out of him. It turns out that the 40 year old perv also has a 9th grade son with a phone being paid for by Dad. The poor guy had to have his kid take the fall for him and tell the cops that yeah he was the one who sent the texts.

      I am friends of a friend of the perv's and he still gets worked up by how shitty he was treated by the cops. And my neighbor still doesn't really believe it was the 9th grade son sending the texts either.

      So I guess the lesson is that the pedophiles are really starting to figure out how to beat the system (AND THEY REALLY ARE AFTER YOUR CHILDREN).

      1. Fluffy   15 years ago

        Umm...it was pretty obviously the son.

        Horses, not zebras.

        1. wylie   15 years ago

          Yeah, until we find out the "9th grade son" was actually a midget hired to cover for the sick bastard.

          You obviously don't have kids, so you can't understand how guilty that guy really is.

        2. robc   15 years ago

          meme

          1. SugarFree   15 years ago

            "You suck, McBain!"

            1. Fist of Etiquette   15 years ago

              MAYBE YOU ALL ARE HOMOSEXUALS, TOO.

              1. GILMORE   15 years ago

                ""The fox network has sunk to a new low""

        3. Pope Jimbo   15 years ago

          Fluffy if you would consent to fly out to sunny Minnesota and attempt to explain the obvious to my neighbor, I could get rich selling tickets to watch the event to my entire neighborhood.

          I'd give you 25% of the gate and 10% of the concessions.

          Trust me, people from blocks away would pay to see anyone brave enough to stand their ground and argue with her instead of just running away.

          1. SugarFree   15 years ago

            What about t-shirt sales? That's the sweetest plum!

            1. GILMORE   15 years ago

              +1 for crusty quote

          2. wylie   15 years ago

            Will there be tractor pulls as well? My attendance depends on them.

          3. Dave   15 years ago

            If you look at the stats, you'll find that this idiocy is most prevalent in Minnesota and Wisconsin.

            (Also North Dakota, on a per capita basis but not in absolute numbers, because nobody actually lives in North Dakota.)

    2. Dave   15 years ago

      America returns to segregation - this time based not on race, but on age (especially if the adult is male).

  2. In Time of War   15 years ago

    All public property is theft.

  3. Doc S.   15 years ago

    Should have fined them for eating unhealthy foods too.

  4. SugarFree   15 years ago

    The comments remind me of why I stopped reading Gothamist.

    Those girls got a ticket because we don't tax the rich enough. Cool story, bro.

    1. Hugh Akston   15 years ago

      It's amazing how people can use any handy stone to grind their particular axe on.

      1. SugarFree   15 years ago

        MNG: Jews stole doughnuts from the Palestinians!

        John: Democrats hate doughnuts!

        Episiarch: It's all rather's fault!

        Dagny: In Canada, we call doughnuts "sugar pucks."

        Danny: Somalis don't have doughnuts because only the government can give out doughnuts.

        SugarFree: Me want stick pee pee in doughnut! Poop!

        1. Episiarch   15 years ago

          It's amazing how accurate this is. Especially the part about you.

          1. SugarFree   15 years ago

            Yes, I do imitate myself quite well on occasion.

        2. Dagny T.   15 years ago

          OK, that made me laugh. But Epi would add something about doughnuts being close to deep dish pizza on the list of food abominations. Then it would somehow evolve into a discussion of the best craft brews.

          1. SugarFree   15 years ago

            "Sugar pucks" went through a number of revisions, including "Toronto rings," "Eskimo blowholes" and "Mer Majesty's Kingmaker."

            1. Crappy Improv Student   15 years ago

              Belgian cock-rings?

        3. Hugh Akston   15 years ago

          rather: They added holes to doughnuts so men could rape them. I wrote about it on my blog.

          Slap the Enlightened!: Black people be eatin' all the White Man's doughnuts.

          Gregory Smith: When Muslims impose sharia law, Doughnuts will be the first thing to go. http://www.conservatives4xenophobia.com

          STEVE SMITH: STEVE SMITH RAPE DOUGHNUT, BAKER, COP ALL IN ONE PRODUCTIVE MORNING.

          Warty: The doughnut was not unresponsive.

          1. wylie   15 years ago

            *ALL IN ONE PRODUCTIVE THRUST.

            ftfy

          2. SugarFree   15 years ago

            Well done. Except Warty would be more likely to post a YouTube link to a death metal song about donuts.

            1. Episiarch   15 years ago

              "Doughnuts are my Business...and Business is Good!" by Megadeth.

          3. Citizen Nothing   15 years ago

            Perhaps it's time to ponder who would play our regulars in Hit & Run, The Musical.

            1. SugarFree   15 years ago

              SugarFree: Nathan Lane (Because I'm fabulous.)

              Episiarch: James Van Der Beek

              Citizen Nothing: The Unknown Comic

              Dagny: No one, because there are no libertarian girls, everyone knows that.

              Warty: Jason Momoa

              1. Episiarch   15 years ago

                The Beek works for me. However, I think Gary Busey is a better choice for Warty.

              2. wylie   15 years ago

                Dagny can be CGI, like other imaginary/mythical beings in film.

                1. SugarFree   15 years ago

                  wylie, then we should make her a beautiful centaur. Wait... What's the word for girl centaur? Centauress? Fillytaur?

                  1. wylie   15 years ago

                    Centaurita?

            2. Hugh Akston   15 years ago

              As long as we can get Robin Williams to play anon-bot, I'm satisfied.

              1. SugarFree   15 years ago

                Is the actress who played Gilbert Grape's mom still alive?

                1. tarran   15 years ago

                  I want 1992 Alan Rickman to play me.

            3. Fluffy   15 years ago

              Playing me will be Gilbert Gottfried's big chance to rehabilitate himself after those unfortunate tsunami texts.

          4. Pope Jimbo   15 years ago

            dunphy: Don't blame the cops. We never do things like this. When I was on "Cops" we used a law like this to nail a pedophile. Besides in Washington you have to show malice before the cop can be charged.

            1. Abdul   15 years ago

              There are more capital letters in that parody than in anything Dunphy ever wrote. He's the e.e. cummings of law enforcement.

              1. e.e. dunphy   15 years ago

                i carry my gun with me(i carry it in
                my holster)i am never without it(anywhere
                i go you go,my dear; and whatever is done
                by only me is your doing,my darling)
                i fear
                no fate(for you are my fate,my sweet)

                1. dunphy   15 years ago

                  fwiw, i only occasionally carry off duty.

                  i support the right to carry, but i don't exercise it all that much

                2. cyto   15 years ago

                  ee doesn't do punctuation either. he's a bug and it is hard to reach those keys.

                  1. Citizen Nothing   15 years ago

                    Naw. That's archy the cockroach. Click Warty's handle sometime.

            2. dunphy   15 years ago

              you can parody all you want, but the reality is that LEGISLATORS passed these stupid laws.

              i try to ignore stupid laws when i can, but ultimatly - bad law is the fault of legislators

              think back to your (obviously insufficient) education. who makes laws? that's right, the leg-is-la-tive branch!!

              although, i have yet to hear of any cop in my agency ever ticket anybody for any of the stupid anti-smoking w/in 25 ft of a building entrance laws we have

              oh, and it's not ee cummings, i emulate. it's bell hooks. cause she's like all progressive n shit!

              1. zoltan   15 years ago

                Just following orders!

              2. MysteryFish   15 years ago

                Did the gubmint surgically remove your sense of humor?

              3. 0x90   15 years ago

                So where the rubber meets the road, you have no choice but to implement what you yourself consider to be bad laws. Just a cog in the machine you are, compelled by forces unknown to show up for work each morning.

                1. Robert   15 years ago

                  That's what Dave Kahn did as a bank examiner. He figured the harder the bad laws were enforced, the more easily they'd be repealed.

        4. old school   15 years ago

          crimethink: Funny how these women could munch away on all the donuts they want while getting an abortion. Why don't we care about protecting the unborn too?

    2. Or   15 years ago

      Brooklyn Gals Ticketed for Eating Doughnuts at a Playground

      I read the linked article. The girls were ticketed for being in a children's playground, not for eating doughnuts. Facts, schmacts.

      1. SugarFree   15 years ago

        Fuck off, rather.

        1. Or   15 years ago

          Not even close. But thanks for your concern.

  5. Dagny T.   15 years ago

    Snarky Brooklyn hipsters might be fun to mock, but in this case I'd hardly call them "unsympathetic." People with the balls to talk back to cops have my respect.

    Also, here's how fucked up our food nannyism has gotten: I initially thought the citation was going to be related to the unhealthiness of doughnuts. Post-reductio America is here.

    1. SugarFree   15 years ago

      STOP RESISTING! STOP RESISTING! STOP RESISTING THE DELICIOUSNESS OF TRANS-FAT!

    2. SIV   15 years ago

      Snarky Brooklyn hipsters might be fun to mock, but in this case I'd hardly call them "unsympathetic." People with the balls to talk back to cops have my respect.

      I have no respect for crap like this this
      I have three little nephews and I appreciate that keeping children safe is the thinking behind this rule.

      does the issuing of summonses to people who even the police do not actually believe are posing a danger, with no prior warning, accord with the law's protective intent?

      Bitch supports the law only she thinks it shouldn't apply to her.

      1. Dagny T.   15 years ago

        Yeah, I saw that too. IDK, I think people feel the need to reflexively preempt the concern trolls (not without good reason).

        At Sug's prompting, I waded into the comments and I was surprised to see people actually agreeing that adults (specifically men) shouldn't be in parks. Like, not to have a picnic or toss a frisbee? The threatening power of male genitalia is that strong, apparently.

        1. SugarFree   15 years ago

          It's because it makes a wooshing noise, like a lightsaber.

          1. wylie   15 years ago

            Yes, frisbees do that...oh, not the frisbees, nevermind.

            1. Dagny T.   15 years ago

              Pretty sure Sug's is shaped like a frisbee. Ponder that.

              1. SugarFree   15 years ago

                The Love Frisbee.

                1. wylie   15 years ago

                  "Eat a bag of discs. A big ole bag of baby discs." - SugarFree

                2. Butts Wagner   15 years ago

                  Are we sure it's not an Aerobie?

                  "For example, it can be caught by thrusting a forearm, the head (when the ring is thrown high), or even a foot through the middle."

                  1. SugarFree   15 years ago

                    Are we sure it's not an Aerobie?

                    YOU LEAVE MY WIFE OUT OF THIS, MOTHERFUCKER!

        2. Timon19   15 years ago

          This sort of thinking is behind the "single men" vs. "family" sections you find in most Middle Eastern restaurants and some public spaces.

          The two sides of "The Holy War (TM)" are more similar than either would ever admit.

          1. Timon19   15 years ago

            Often "single men" is rendered as "bachelors".

            1. Pip   15 years ago

              You know who else rendered bachelors?

        3. 00=======D   15 years ago

          "The threatening power of male genitalia is that strong, apparently."

          Bask in my awesomeness, bitches!

        4. Dave   15 years ago

          Welcome to Segregation. Men and children are not allowed to mix. That's why we're phasing out male schoolteachers, and why we put fences topped with barbed wire around all the schools.

      2. Fluffy   15 years ago

        does the issuing of summonses to people who even the police do not actually believe are posing a danger, with no prior warning, accord with the law's protective intent?

        Yeah, I really hate that part too. My sympathy disintegrated at that point as well.

        I try to tell myself, "Well, maybe they aren't that sophisticated and don't realize that laws put on the books not to be enforced across the board, but to be brought out of reserve only when needed to be used against the 'right' people, are pretty repulsive in and of themselves."

        But then I remember that usually even when something like this is explained to people, they go right on saying BS like this anyway. So I said, "Fuck it, I'm not giving them the benefit of the doubt."

    3. Paul   15 years ago

      I've read the article twice and I'm still looking for the "unsympathetic" part. Did I miss something? What made the ladies "unsympathetic"? I mean, aside from the fact that while no, the children present in the park weren't "theirs", they were "in the company of" children.

      1. wylie   15 years ago

        Those bitches broke the law, and the law is the law is the law is the law.

        Sympathizing with felonious ner-do-wells like that is tantamount to providing material support to terrorists, or eating babies.

      2. Abdul   15 years ago

        I think it's because they were sitting outside a doughnut shop and were all shocked that a cop hassled them. It's like those yuppie douchebags who buy houses on Indian burial grounds and complain about the poltergeists.

        1. proegg antichicken   15 years ago

          nice.

    4. Adam Smith 1776   15 years ago

      I made the same mistake, but in the future will keep in mind that "public" is an Orwellian term, and pulblic places are no longer free to the public. You cannot dance at the Jefferson Memorial or sit in a public playground. E Pluribus Unum should now be replaced with Liberte delonda est.

  6. Colonel_Angus   15 years ago

    Fuck you, New York City. I hope you all are losing sleep every night because you are paranoid that the terrorists or secondhand smoke will get you.

  7. Colonel_Angus   15 years ago

    "They were technically in the wrong, and not the most sympathetic of characters,"

    and

    "Nobody is saying that these women were in the right by sitting and eating their doughnuts on a bench in a playground rather than a park, they weren't"

    What the fuck?

    1. squarooticus   15 years ago

      Yeah, I don't understand how in any way these girls aren't sympathetic. They were quietly eating donuts in a public space, minding their own business. The intent of rules is to preserve order, not to provide pigs with a job harrassing ordinary citizens who are not making trouble for anyone else. This is stupid, plain and simple.

      1. proegg antichicken   15 years ago

        but were they dressed in rediculous hipster clothes?

      2. wylie bending rodiguez   15 years ago

        The intent of rules is to preserve order, not to provide pigs with a job harrassing ordinary citizens who are not making trouble for anyone else.

        Oh, you're serious. In that case, let me laugh even harder.

        1. R C Dean   15 years ago

          The essential element of "preserving order" is "respect for authority." That is what distinguishes preserving order from enforcing the law.

        2. Richard J. Daley   15 years ago

          The police are not there to create disorder, they are there to preserve disorder.

      3. robc   15 years ago

        As Tulpa keeps pointing out, parks arent for eating.

        1. SugarFree   15 years ago

          Ouch.

      4. dunphy   15 years ago

        were they fat?

        did the cops confiscate the donuts and eat them themselves.

        personally, i live seattle. we don't do coffee and donuts

        we do lattes and scones...

        well, double decaf no caf soy mocha lattes ... with a twist!

    2. Fire Tiger   15 years ago

      "They were technically in the wrong,

      If the sign linked in the article had the same verbage as the sign at the park they were at then technically they weren't in the wrong. If there were children at the park then they met the requirement of being "in the company of children." The sign should read "unless accompanied by a child." Of course that then means addults who bring more than 1 child to the park would be in violation.

      1. dunphy   15 years ago

        name the logical fallacy

        1. wylie   15 years ago

          I was told there would be no math.

        2. Fire Tiger   15 years ago

          A lack of reading comprehension does not equate to a logical fallacy.

      2. Robert   15 years ago

        Didn't help with the Inwood chess players, because there were no children present. In the playground with the inlaid chessboards installed by the Parks Dept.

  8. squarooticus   15 years ago

    They were technically in the wrong

    From the standpoint of a bureaucrat, that's the most important kind of wrong.

    1. Episiarch   15 years ago

      "Don't quote me regulations! I co-chaired the committee that reviewed the recommendation to revise the color of the book that regulation's in."

      1. squarooticus   15 years ago

        Congratulations: that is, in fact, the scene I was referencing.

        🙂

      2. tarran   15 years ago

        What color did you decide to use?

        1. Hank Littlefield   15 years ago

          "We kept it gray."

  9. DK   15 years ago

    I'd like to hear from Mr. Welch on what he thinks is unsympathetic about the gals. Obviously, the story was from their point of view, but their actions seem more than reasonable.

  10. dunphy   15 years ago

    anybody... ANYBODY who tells me rightwing nannies are worse than leftwing nannies is... well... wrong.

    otoh, San Fran is worse than NYC... West Coast REPRESENT!

    1. Johnny Clamboat   15 years ago

      Precisely, they are both worse.

  11. Paul   15 years ago

    "Are you here with a child?" We told them no. One of the cops moved on to the couple on a bench nearby, also ostensibly childless, while the other one asked for our IDs.

    I have been tempted at times to not carry any ID with me when I'm not driving my car.

    1. Hugh Akston   15 years ago

      I just want to ask to see a cops ID.

      1. dunphy   15 years ago

        we are required to carry it and show it on demand - when reasonable (iow not in the middle of a shootout).

        i've done so about half dozen times, when required.

        1. Paul   15 years ago

          we are required to carry it and show it on demand - when reasonable (iow not in the middle of a shootout).

          If you were required to present it during a shootout, imagine how many dogs would be saved.

          1. Fluffy   15 years ago

            Come on, he couldn't hear the dog's request for ID because he was shouting too loud for the dog to stop resisting.

    2. Mainer   15 years ago

      In my new home state of New Hampshire, you are not required to produce an ID on demand. See Free Staters on YouTube when they tell cops this.

  12. Walter   15 years ago

    'I got really angry and asked the officer if he honestly believed he was helping this community by giving us these summonses. His response only made me more angry. "I don't believe in anything," he said. '

    Fucking nihilists. Say what you want about the tenets of Nation Socialism, at least it's an ethos.

    1. Fluffy   15 years ago

      I would have bought that cop a donut for his honesty.

      No other cop in the entire borough told that much truth that day.

    2. dunphy   15 years ago

      donnny: "what's nihilism?"

      1. Walter Sobchak   15 years ago

        Shut the fuck up donny

    3. .....   15 years ago

      !@*)!*(@#&! beat me to it...

  13. Paul   15 years ago

    Cops who "don't believe in anything" will will arrest and harass you for anything.

    1. SugarFree   15 years ago

      Winning.

    2. R C Dean   15 years ago

      Worse: A cop who doesn't believe in anything will arrest and harass you for nothing.

      1. dunphy   15 years ago

        or more correctly : for stuff that stupid legislators pass into law.

        1. Chinny Chin Chin   15 years ago

          They're just following orders, eh Dunph?

        2. MysteryFish   15 years ago

          Your tireless refrain of this claim is quite impressive.

          But are you absolutely certain that the officer bears zero responsibility for enforcing bad law?

    3. Walter Sobchak   15 years ago

      Nihilist cops! Fuck me. I mean, say what you like about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos.

  14. X   15 years ago

    I guess the cops were supposed to ignore the fact that they were sitting on a park bench, just like Jethro Tull.

    1. dunphy   15 years ago

      i hear they can cite for running snot, too

      hey snot, WALK don't run (with props to the ventures)

    2. Highway   15 years ago

      Yeah, but there are 5 little girls there so, even though they have bad intent, they're still in compliance.

  15. Butt Seriously   15 years ago

    The cops were not aware that these stupid laws were enacted by the Jewish/Black/Gay confab, to disable park patrons of their doughnut fantasy minutes. That is where we come in . . . we educate, and if we can educate the masses then we will have more freedoms to exploit, for longer periods of time, free from the shackles of the aforementioned confab. It's there, has always been there, but can be rooted out through excellent teaching methods.

  16. Abdul   15 years ago

    I felt bad about this: "And for the record, this was at the Lafayette Gardens Playground, on Lafayette and Franklin Avenues, which is not to be confused with the Crispus Attucks Playground, a.k.a. "Prostitution Park," a few blocks away."

    The park named after America's first war hero has gone all 70's blaxpoitation.

  17. Ska   15 years ago

    Makes those "Brooklyn - believe the hype" signs a warning, not an endorsement.

  18. TrickyVic   15 years ago

    There are more pervs in NYC parks than anywhere else. Haven't you seen Law and Order SVU?

  19. Zeb   15 years ago

    Seems to me that the park rules, when posted on a small, hard to read, sign ought to have about as much legal force as the terms of use on a website. Although I suppose there is already precedent for using that against a person who is sufficiently unsympathetic.

    1. proegg antichicken   15 years ago

      LoneWacko?

  20. xenia onatopp   15 years ago

    Wait, what? I know I'm a little slow on the uptake here, but I'm still trying to wrap my mind around this whole no-adults-in-the-playground-without-kids idea. I wasn't even aware I lived in a world where such idiocy prevailed. I mean, sometimes I go to the park nearby all by myself and go on the swings. For real, and no drugs involved. Around here nobody even looks at me funny, but apparently in some jurisdictions I could be cited for this? Or would I have to be eating a doughnut ay the same time?

    Shit, now I'm all confused.

    1. SIV   15 years ago

      The donut bitches support no-adult-in-the-park laws, they just don't believe they should apply to them.
      "Laws are for other people"
      I can't understand why anyone would find these people sympathetic.

    2. ?   15 years ago

      It had nothing to do with eating doughnuts.

    3. Dave   15 years ago

      It's been this way for years in some jurisdictions.

      Of course, it's really the segregation of MEN from children that they're going for, so women are usually left alone. Apparently no more!

  21. Esteban   15 years ago

    You're better off being accused of terrorism than being an accused/assumed pedophile in Obama's United States. I fail to see how this is little better than fascism.

    1. The PATRIOT Act   15 years ago

      Hey, gimme a break, I'm working on it.

    2. Dave   15 years ago

      This has been building since the late 1970s, well before Obama hit the national scene.

  22. Joe M   15 years ago

    We already did this story, remember? It was the guys playing chess last time.

  23. IceTrey   15 years ago

    You can go here to se the park.

    http://www.vpike.com/?d=2380693&s=NY&f=park

    The playground is surrounded by a three foot high fence that is obviously totally useless from keeping anybody out. A perv could stand on the outside of the fence and snatch kids all day.

    1. Robert   15 years ago

      I just had a vision of someone with a fishing pole slung over the fence. Hook baited with, uh, let's see...crayons? Nah, that'd catch only "trash fish" kids. Maybe one of those electric light thingies.

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

Brickbat: Cracked

Charles Oliver | 1.1.2026 4:00 AM

'Affordability' Politics Is a Major Opening for the Free Market Message in the New Year

Christian Britschgi | 12.31.2025 3:35 PM

If You Give a Bear a Badge, Will It Respect Your Rights?

Jacob Sullum | 12.31.2025 3:10 PM

The Big Lesson of the 2020s? Don't Ignore the Economists.

Eric Boehm | 12.31.2025 1:00 PM

Study: Short-Form Video Isn't Rotting Your Brain

Elizabeth Nolan Brown | 12.31.2025 12:24 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS Add Reason to Google

© 2025 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

I WANT FREE MINDS AND FREE MARKETS!

Help Reason push back with more of the fact-based reporting we do best. Your support means more reporters, more investigations, and more coverage.

Make a donation today! No thanks
r

I WANT TO FUND FREE MINDS AND FREE MARKETS

Every dollar I give helps to fund more journalists, more videos, and more amazing stories that celebrate liberty.

Yes! I want to put my money where your mouth is! Not interested
r

SUPPORT HONEST JOURNALISM

So much of the media tries telling you what to think. Support journalism that helps you to think for yourself.

I’ll donate to Reason right now! No thanks
r

PUSH BACK

Push back against misleading media lies and bad ideas. Support Reason’s journalism today.

My donation today will help Reason push back! Not today
r

HELP KEEP MEDIA FREE & FEARLESS

Back journalism committed to transparency, independence, and intellectual honesty.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

STAND FOR FREE MINDS

Support journalism that challenges central planning, big government overreach, and creeping socialism.

Yes, I’ll support Reason today! No thanks
r

PUSH BACK AGAINST SOCIALIST IDEAS

Support journalism that exposes bad economics, failed policies, and threats to open markets.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

FIGHT BAD IDEAS WITH FACTS

Back independent media that examines the real-world consequences of socialist policies.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

BAD ECONOMIC IDEAS ARE EVERYWHERE. LET’S FIGHT BACK.

Support journalism that challenges government overreach with rational analysis and clear reasoning.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

JOIN THE FIGHT FOR FREEDOM

Support journalism that challenges centralized power and defends individual liberty.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

BACK JOURNALISM THAT PUSHES BACK AGAINST SOCIALISM

Your support helps expose the real-world costs of socialist policy proposals—and highlight better alternatives.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

FIGHT BACK AGAINST BAD ECONOMICS.

Donate today to fuel reporting that exposes the real costs of heavy-handed government.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks