Easter came and went on April 5th, and I’m certain I’m not the only person who felt vaguely underwhelmed by the entire proceeding. The stores had their displays, and the churches had their signs, but the actual day of Easter came and went without any particular fanfare, barely being noticed in the endless stream of one day into the next.

At first I just attributed this to the world’s general sense of existential dread, what with the President of the United States using Easter Morning to demand that Iran open the Strait of Hormuz or else they would be “living in hell.” However, it’s not just Easter that’s felt off lately; most holidays have lost their luster. It’s rare that I get excited for an actual holiday tradition at this point, whether it’s New Years’ Eve fireworks, birthday cards, or the Thanksgiving Day parade, and on further inspection, that lack of joy stems from the hyper-materialization of holidays.

Consider, for a moment, the following celebration. People spend money on gifts of some form or another; they spend money on special themed candy or snacks; they spend money on selecting a message from a generic pile of themed and printed cards; they spend money on overly specialized home decor which is only ever out for a couple weeks of the year; they spend, they spend, and they spend. I hope everyone agrees that this is less an authentic celebration and more an opportunity to push everyone to buy things they don’t need.

Why is it, then, that most holiday celebrations in the 21st century are increasingly resembling that description? Whether it be Christmas, Halloween, Valentine’s Day, Easter, July 4th, or even family milestones like birthdays, celebrations have become flat and vapid. We no longer emphasize the opportunity to be with rarely seen family and friends or have a unique celebration that makes each holiday meaningful. Instead, we gather in search of the greatest spending: The finest candies, nicest seasonal decor, and prettiest bits of cardstock filled with board-approved platitudes and one-liners. None of those things were made by us or have any clear value besides the money spent on them, and the holiday spirit gets diluted by every egg-shaped paper plate or inflatable yard Santa.

This rampant materialism in place of actual celebration is bad enough, but there’s a second problem that needs to be addressed: Advertising and brand exploitation. Nearly every major event in the world has wound up with a big old brand slapped across its face, from the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade to Coca-Cola’s AI Christmas ads to the tech companies sponsoring the White House Easter Egg Roll. It’s hard to feel genuine about a celebration or community event when the speakers are namedropping corporations and every celebratory item has paid-for logos plastered on.

Beyond the incessant advertising, companies also needlessly transform their purportedly universal products during the holiday season just so they can sell new and exclusive variants. This can come either through special holiday promotions, like the annual Happy Honda Days in November and December, or through unique product variants. Candy companies are by far the worst offenders in this latter category; just by way of example, PEEPS has over 40 different variants, most of which are themed around particular holidays (Pumpkins and ghosts for Halloween, trees for Christmas, rabbits for Easter, and more). When every holiday is an excuse for Hershey’s to generate a new shape of Reese’s Peanut Butter trees/hearts/eggs/pumpkins, it’s hard to get excited about any one of them.

Unfortunately, the cat is well and truly out of the bag when it comes to corporate involvement and materialism in holidays. The solution, then, is not to somehow ban corporations, but to instead de-monetize and re-personalize holidays. If global-scale traditions are no longer holding value, create new personal traditions. Rather than buying a pile of plastic decor or a pack of holiday cupcakes, consider learning to make a dessert that can become a new family favorite, or involving guests in custom-making decorations. Centering personal joy and connection over sponsored corporate slop will take more effort, but it might just restore a little of the luster that capitalism has drained away.

Content warning: This story addresses the killing of Alex Pretti.

“The party told you,” wrote George Orwell at the end of 1984, “to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”

I write this piece after federal agents executed Minnesota native Alex Jeffrey Pretti, who worked as an ICU nurse at the Minneapolis VA Health Care system. Pretti was shot at least ten times in the span of five seconds. This is the second killing by federal agents in three weeks, after Renée Nicole Good was killed by I.C.E. agent Jonathan Ross on Jan. 7.

Video footage taken by eyewitnesses and obtained by a variety of news organizations suggests that Pretti was not violently resisting federal agents; instead, Pretti was assisting a woman that had been pepper-sprayed by agents. He did not threaten agents with the firearm he was legally carrying. In fact, federal agents disarmed him as they were holding him. 

Yet the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) immediately sought to frame Pretti as a domestic terrorist. Less than two hours after Pretti’s death, official DHS social media accounts claimed, without evidence, that “this looks like a situation where an individual wanted to do maximum damage and massacre law enforcement.” 

In a press conference, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem questioned why a law-abiding citizen would be carrying a gun: “I don’t know of any peaceful protestor that shows up with a gun and ammunition rather than a sign.” Yet Pretti was legally armed: he had a legal conceal-and-carry permit, which satisfies Minnesota state law requiring a permit to carry. Minnesota law notwithstanding, the Second Amendment has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to broadly protect citizens’ rights to carry firearms.

The federal response to Pretti’s death suggests that the evidence of our eyes and ears—especially those of the eyes and ears on the ground—ought to be rejected. DHS officials understand that the Department is gaslighting the public, as one anonymous officer told CBS:

“It’s unclear who at DHS thought it would be a good idea to make such claims before any facts were established, but it was a terrible miscalculation… When we gaslight and contradict what the public can plainly see with their own eyes, we lose all credibility and it’s going to damage our reputation for generations.”

Indeed, critical analysis of this case suggests that the government’s narrative has fabricated key aspects of the story and lied about Pretti’s motivations, with no attempts made to rectify this.

How Not to Find Truth

There are two tempting yet improper approaches when following a story.

The first is to follow a narrative without considering other perspectives. If you let one source define your understanding of the scenario, you will go eighty miles towards their preferred conclusions before you even consider other facts. That applies to all sources, as one source never has sufficient evidence on its own. Finding reliable sources of information, especially on-the-ground or local sources, is crucial. Eyewitnesses,, are often more reliable than secondary reporting; video is even more reliable.

The second erroneous path is to conclude that the problem is too complex to untie, and that staying out is the best and/or safest option. This is sometimes necessary in academic or professional settings, but is unhelpful for navigating daily life. Thinking, processing and responding to tragedies is part of the logical and emotional loops that make us human. (In this particular case, not caring about the result— a man being shot by federal agents—might suggest a different, more sinister, kind of emotional response.)

The Steps of the Coverup

When critically evaluating conflicting narratives, it’s important to look for evidence of a coverup: places where the government, media outlets, or other sources of information seek to omit or misrepresent critical evidence.

The government’s official telling of events (off the record, DHS officials are confident the public-facing story is wrong) omits evidence for a key aspect of its case. It claims, without presenting evidence, that Pretti “brandish[ed]” a gun at federal agents. At the time of writing, existing video analysis suggests that Pretti did not “brandish” a firearm, at least not in the threatening sense of that term. Indeed, by the time of the shooting Pretti had already been disarmed. Moreover, Secretary Noem declined to answer direct questions about the timeline of the alleged “brandishing.” This is atypical behavior given the circumstances on the ground, and Noem’s avoidance suggests there is more to be discovered here.

In addition, the absence of body-worn or other cameras from I.C.E. agents is telling. I.C.E. agents are required by DHS policy, updated under the Trump administration, to “capture footage of Enforcement Activities… as soon as safely possible.” At time of publication, the White House confirmed the existence of body cam footage but has declined to release it. If the government wishes to substantiate its claim that Pretti is a “domestic terrorist,” it should provide evidence that the agent was indeed threatened or had a reasonable fear for his life, which would justify claims of self-defense. The release of such footage would complement rather than hinder existing video analysis, as current accounts do not show significant portions of the lead-up. 

A third item suggesting a potential coverup: federal investigators, in an uncommon move, have blocked state and local authorities from accessing the crime scene or conducting their own investigations. This occurred both in the killing of Pretti and the killing of Renée Good. In Pretti’s case, the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension has been denied access to the scene even though they have a signed judicial warrant granting them access. If indeed the officers in these cases acted correctly, state investigators’ access to the scene would have led them to the same conclusion. The DHS intends to investigate itself and find itself free from wrongdoing.

When The Party Lies

Like Big Brother, Homeland Security has attempted a brazen retelling of the narrative. Orwell’s quotation about the “final, most essential command” does not end there. It goes on to say that the protagonist’s heart “sank as he thought of the enormous power arrayed against him, the ease with which any Party intellectual would overthrow him in debate…” While “Party intellectual” might be a touch oxymoronic in this context, Orwell’s emphasis on trusting our eyes remains. In the face of a powerful state actively attempting to sanctify its assassins and change how its own history is understood, truth remains a powerful defense—as long as we let it. Instead of addressing the killing of Alex Pretti as a tragedy that must be investigated, the administration’s response seeks to vilify the dead without providing a shred of evidence. Americans must not fall for such an easy excuse. We must demand accountability from those in power. 
As with Ms. Good, the blood of the innocent is in the air. Last week, Americans celebrated Martin Luther King, Jr., whose famous speech claimed that “[s]omehow the preacher must be an Amos, and say, ‘Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.’” This demand for justice, and for truth, must never go unanswered. Minneapolis faith leaders are already heeding the call. So should we.

Are you pumped to gorge yourself on both food and entertainment this upcoming National Native Day of Mourning even as hundreds of thousands of Americans have lost their SNAP and food stamp benefits???!!! I sure am!!! I’m so glad you all found my last holiday article, in which I suggested some low-stress ways to keep conversations civil and nonpolitical, helpful. In fact, I hear that my tactics almost worked too well for many of you, accidentally causing a total hush as your entire family, overwhelmed with your wisdom, stopped speaking and silently meditated for the entirety of Thanksgiving dinner, striving for nirvana and completely ignoring both the big football game and Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade. If this situation sounds familiar, read on for my tried-and-true tips to turn any awkward silence into happy and zero-conflict family time!

Tip #1: Selecting a Topic 

The most important tip, of course, is to make sure you understand the balance between casual, low-stakes conversation and something that your family could be offended by or take personally. That’s why I always start with a pleasant, objectively true comment like, “Isn’t it beautiful weather? It’s so crisp and autumny outside!” or “Wow, isn’t it great that the Supreme Court declined to revisit Obergefell v. Hodges, protecting same-sex couples’ right to marriage?” Since these comments are both friendly remarks about things we all agree about, they are perfect for starting a lively conversation without disturbing the Thanksgiving peace.

Tip #2: Setting the Mood 

After making sure your conversation starter is noncontroversial, you have to deliver it correctly. Even the most banal comment could be taken the wrong way if you seem agitated or mean when you say it. Here’s a pro tip: Thanksgiving is about thankfulness (and colonization), so you already have a built-in socially acceptable way to make comments! Simply start your sentence with “I’m so thankful for,” expressing your gratitude and joy to ensure you are not seen as disruptive or unpleasant. For example, if I grabbed a greasy serving fork, rolled my eyes back in my head, and screamed, “People wanted Charlie Kirk’s assassin to pay the highest possible penalty when they blamed a trans person, but as soon as they realized a cis, white, religious man was responsible, they switched over to thoughts and prayers for the murderer!” this could be seen as aggressive, even though I followed Tip #1 and made a noncontroversial and obvious point. Instead, I would format my comment thus: “I’m so thankful for increasing awareness of gun violence in America!” using a calm, happy voice and only gritting my teeth a little bit. Try it! 

Tip #3: Knowing Your Audience 

Always make sure you understand where everyone’s coming from before starting a conversation! Notice the little moments, and remember things your family has expressed in the past so that your comments always land the way you want. Let’s say the table is awkwardly quiet and I want to start a conversation. I look around the table and see, probably, a lot of white people. I think back to things I know about white people, like how we participated in the transatlantic slave trade, the Trail of Tears and other forms of colonization and racism, including neocolonialist practices that are still occurring today. Eureka! “Did you know that calling people ‘illegal’ for not having the correct papers under a system that makes it extremely difficult to gain these documents legally is, in fact, racist and discriminatory, devaluing immigrants as people even though America is supposed to be a nation of immigrants and a melting pot for all cultures?” I would then say. Be sure to incorporate Tip #2 — I’ve found that raising your eyebrows very high, smiling as widely as possible, and looking at everyone at the table in quick succession is the most pleasant way to deliver this point. After about 30 seconds of looking around and grinning, remember to express your gratitude by adding, “I’m thankful that you agree with me here and are working not to carry on the legacy of the horrible things the U.S. has done in the past.” Then, you should quickly jump up from the table and open the front door, welcoming in the 47,964 immigrants who committed only minor offenses, like traffic violations, held in ICE detention centers as of 2025. Education about a certain people group is, of course, best done by members of that people group, so personal contact with the minorities persecuted by President Trump’s fascist regime will be a valuable opportunity for your family to ask questions and learn.

But What if an Argument Starts Anyway? 

Once you know how to find a noncontroversial point, deliver it in a pleasant way, and understand your audience, you’ll be able to create a warm environment that fosters great conversations and promotes familial community. Unfortunately, there’s always one person who doesn’t know these tips, and might even try to start something on purpose — what a faux pas! If anyone at the table says something that is bad etiquette and doesn’t follow the above tips, whether it’s a topic that could be offensive, a downright unpleasant delivery, or a lack of effort to understand where people are coming from, you can fix it! Simply read accurate and scholarly sources about political topics, speak to a wide variety of people and make a genuine effort to understand their experiences, remember the speaker’s shared humanity as you prepare to encounter their misguided attitude and hire a death metal vocalist to loudly growl out the famous political protest song “Bella Ciao” any time the problematic family member begins speaking. This uplifting, anti-fascist experience should help even the grumpiest relative see the error of their ways, after which you can take the opportunity to share my three tips for successful holiday conversation. 

A Situation From a Reader Just Like You! 

I did also want to address a quick reader question. Unfortunately, after reading my first Thanksgiving article, someone let me know that every year they have to share a Thanksgiving table with — the essence of medical malpractice and ableism itself? What a sticky situation! My advice is to just read RFK Jr. a peer-reviewed article about honestly any scientific topic. This will probably take him out; if not, I think a flamethrower is what you’re supposed to use for zombies.

Now that you know how to start productive conversations over the Thanksgiving holiday, you should be totally prepared for the big day! I hope my tips help you celebrate without having to worry about awkward silences or those annoying moments when your family somehow starts saying things that they clearly can’t actually believe. Happy Tofurkey Day, and enjoy the benefits of capitalist exploitation that you greedily benefit from with no concern or empathy for the less fortunate!!! God bless America!!

I’m watching Season Two of The Last of Us (there will be no spoilers in this piece!) over the summer with some friends, and we get to a part including an on-screen ritual disembowelment. A child character watches the ritual disembowelment, then stares another character down and makes a slicing motion across his stomach as if drawing one of the curved ritual sickles across it. I remember being completely jolted out of the show as I realized that even if somehow they shielded that child actor from actually seeing the SFX organs spilling out of a strung-up SFX human being, they still had to direct that child to make that motion across his stomach as if cutting into himself, right next to an actor holding a weapon, probably telling him to “look like he was threatening to kill someone” or some similar stage direction. I remember thinking that there’s no way this 8-ish year old child could have understood the impact of this role even if he did personally consent (as opposed to a caretaker making the decision) to act in The Last of Us, and, much like the victims of family vlogging on social media, I wondered whether he would grow up to watch this show back and wonder why in the world his caretakers let that happen to him. 

And even if this child does not sustain long-lasting mental trauma, why is he working? We don’t think about this phenomenon enough. We have child labor laws for a reason; children are easily exploited and should therefore not be working at all, instead focusing on school and brain development. The money is also an issue; generally, parents are in charge of almost the entirety of any payment, and are also in control of signing the child up for events and acting roles. This situation, as I’m sure is obvious, could very easily turn abusive; children cannot stand up for themselves, but are tasked with working a job and making money which the parents then mostly keep. The child does not have a genuine capability to consent to any of this because of their young age and inability to understand the full consequences of what they are agreeing to.

So what am I saying? Should we only have adult actors – no movies with children in them in any capacity? Yes, that is pretty much my point. I think our only ethical options in the acting world are either for adults to act the roles of children or for CGI and motion capturing to be used for any child roles necessary. We could also do animated productions with adult voice actors. 

Wouldn’t this make the productions cheesy and obviously fake? Maybe. I don’t really care. Personal entertainment isn’t everything, and we certainly shouldn’t be sacrificing ethical treatment of children for a limited believability increase in a production we already all know is fictional. I’ll take a slightly uncanny valley CGI Renesmee (don’t search that name up unless you’ve already watched Twilight: Breaking Dawn, Pt. 1) over a real little boy making a disembowelment gesture over his own stomach in exchange for money that will be kept by his caretakers any day, and really, so should we all.