Wray's Federal Bureau of Intimidation

The FBI's already tarnished public image is deteriorating. Recent incidents are shining a light on the agency's increasing targeting of Americans for activities the bureau has labeled as domestic terrorism. In the latest revelation, the FBI spied on Catholics in a clear violation of the First Amendment.  

During the last 18 months, the FBI has used its assets to go after Americans speaking out at school board meetings, coordinated with social media companies to suppress speech, illegally spied on a political campaign and surveilled black activists. The conduct is taking a toll on trust in the FBI.

The latest NBC News Poll, conducted in July, found that only 37% of registered voters surveyed had a positive view of the FBI.  In the same poll in October of 2018, more than half of Americans (52%) viewed the FBI favorably.  That's a precipitous fall that should concern FBI Director Christopher Wray.

Apparently, it doesn't.

How else can you explain Wray's testimony before a Congressional committee about reports the FBI targeted so-called "radical traditionalist" Catholics as potential domestic terrorists? 

The director testified in July before the House Judiciary Committee about the disturbing allegation.  A smiling Wray under withering interrogation assured members the FBI's action was limited "to a single office" in Richmond, VA. He claimed it was a regrettable blunder that he immediately halted.  

The clamor died down until House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan requested an un-redacted copy of the Richmond office's memo.  The agency document divulged the Richmond office relied on information from field offices in Los Angeles and Portland for contributions to the threat assessment.

The new information proves that Wray's statements  were inaccurate. And that's being overly charitable. The agency's actions were not limited to a single office.  If multiple offices were involved, how could the FBI director be so ill informed about his department's probe?

The FBI memo reviewed by the committee reveals "radical traditionalist" Catholics" were targets over concerns their beliefs may be interpreted as violent views.  Volatile issues cited in the memo include views on "abortion rights" and "LGBTQ protections," writes the National Catholic Register.

The FBI memo appears to imply that being pro-life or holding beliefs that there are only two genders (male and female) are tangentially related to violent, extremest views, which threaten public safety. This  appears to criminalize the doctrine of the Catholic Church.  

Included in the memo is an Orwellian recommendation that FBI agents attempt to recruit traditionalist Catholics to keep tabs on so-called "radical traditionalists" in their congregation.  The FBI conduct smacks of Soviet-style efforts to intimidate houses of worship that don't embrace government dogma.    

Let's make it clear what is going on at the highest levels of government in Washington. If your beliefs run counter to government doctrine, then the FBI considers you a potential terrorist threat. The chilling inference is that religious theology must align with the federal government's doctrine.   

The FBI's action is a direct threat to the First Amendment guarantee of the free exercise of religion and sends a frightening message about the practice of faith.  Whatever your political affiliation, this is a stunning abuse of power.  Do you want the FBI criminalizing Americans religious beliefs? 

What's ironic is the FBI appears to have no interest in investigating the rise in attacks on Catholic Churches. Last year there were at least 272 incidents in 43 states, including arson, vandalism, the beheading of statues, smashed windows and gravestone defaced with swastikas and anti-Catholic slurs. 

The spike in violence appears to have escalated after the leak of the Supreme Court's draft proposal to overturn Roe V Wade. In anticipation of the final decision, abortion activists unleashed a wave of angry protests against pro-life pregnancy centers and Catholic Churches. 

The result was an increase in anti-Catholic rhetoric from politicians, government officials and activists. It is ironic, since Pew Research polls have shown 56% of Catholic believe abortion should be legal. That is almost the same percentage of all Americans (61%) who support abortion. 

Instead of snooping on Catholics, the FBI should be dedicating resources to address the rising attacks against all churches.  A recent Hostility Against Churches report, authored by the Family Research Council, found that incidents in the first three months of this year are three times higher than last year. 

The research council study identified 420 incidents, including gun-related incidents and bomb threats from January 2018 to September 2022.  The FRC warns the "anger and division" in American society endangers not only churches but erodes religious freedom.

Christians aren't the only ones being targeted. Antisemitic incidents skyrocketed 36% last year. A report from the Anti-Defamation League found there were 3,697 incidents of harassment, vandalism and assaults targeting Jewish people and communities.  

The report concludes that public officials, including some in Congress, famous artists and social media stars have been "instrumental in normalizing longstanding antisemitic tropes."  To some, lack of action by federal law enforcement implies the threats do not rise to level of FBI concern.  

Christopher Wray needs to be hauled before Congress and questioned about what the FBI is doing to stop the rising violence against religions and religious people.  The FBI's mission is to uphold the Constitution, which guarantees the right to practice religion free from intimidation.

Americans religious beliefs are not subject to FBI oversight.  Period.  

A Nostalgic Trip Back To The Golden 50's

The age odometer on the dashboard of my life clicked to 77 in June. When you've clocked that many years, it's natural to peer into life's rearview mirror.  As people of a certain age understand, you are prone to experience waves of nostalgia even as you appreciate today's advantages.

The year I was born, 1946, marked the starting point of the largest baby boom in U.S. history.  In a 19-year stretch from 1946 to 1964, more than 76 million births were recorded.  Population data estimates there are 65 million boomers still celebrating birthdays. Congratulations if you're in that exclusive club.

My earliest memories, although somewhat hazy, go back to 1950.  My parents and my oldest sister Charlene were living in a two-bedroom home in Jennings, Louisiana, population 9,663.  America's small towns were its beating heart. Only five cities topped 1 million in population. 

I have no idea what our two bedroom home cost, but the average home in 1950 sold for $23,450.  That was a princely sum, considering average annual wages were $8,450.  My Dad purchased our first new car, a Ford, in the 50's. Cars sold for an average of $1,510.  Gas cost 18 cents a gallon and a station attendant pumped your gas.

When Mom shopped for food, the price she paid for groceries would shock today's younger generations. The average cost of a loaf of bread was 12 cents. A pound of hamburger meat was 30 cents.  The average American family spent about $800 on food... in an entire year.  

The buying power of $1 in 1950 would equate to $12.66 today.  Do the math and it means $500 would be the equivalent value of $6,330.06 today.  If you find yourself yearning for the good old days, today's comforts we take for granted were either nonexistent or unaffordable for most families.

Our home was cooled by a window fan in sweltering, sticky Louisiana summers. No one complained because at least we had a fan.  There were only 76,000 air conditioners installed in the 1950's.  It wasn't until 1973 when the majority of U.S. households had central air conditioning or a window unit.

Schools opened windows during early fall and some rooms had an oscillating fan. Flies were frequent visitors to our class. It didn't impact anyone's ability to learn. Mom packed a lunch every day, because it was cheaper than paying to eat in the cafeteria. There was no such thing as a free school lunch.  

Every school day began with the Pledge of Allegiance, a tiny hand over your heart.  Students weren't the only ones saluting the flag. America was awash in patriotism.  There was a good feeling about the country, a belief they God had blessed the USA.  Will America every be like that again? 

Our home was equipped with a social network: a black telephone.  It wasn't uncommon in 1950 to share a line with another home or two. Most folks were polite enough not to interrupt a conversation on their party line.  About two-thirds of the 43 million households in America had at least one phone. 

Historians refer to 1950 as the golden age of crime because there were so few offenses.  FBI data does not go back that far, while other sources date to 1960.  In a sign of few crimes, no one locked the doors to their homes or cars. Today's generations will never know the tranquility of that era.   

In 1950, only nine percent of households had a television set. Families streaming service was free: programs on radio.  I listened to cowboy stories over the airwaves.  My favorite was "The Lone Ranger," which debuted in 1933 and ran until 1956. You needed an imagination to "see" horses, cattle and holstered pistols. Television robbed future generations of their cognitive imagery ability.  

At some point in the late 50's, a black-and-white television the size of a small refrigerator graced our living room.  Reception was always dicey.  Those rabbit-ears--two long antennas--captured the airwaves and turned it into sound and picture.  The picture often was fuzzy, a hazard of nascent technology.

Despite the poor quality, each home with a television attracted neighbor kids, who soon begged their parents to buy one of those new fangled devices.  Neighbors often dropped by to take a peak to see what all the fuss was about.  By 1960, 90% of homes had a black-and-white magic box.

With seven kids to clothe, the Roy family annual fashion budget wouldn't touch the cost of an iPhone.  Most clothes coast below $5, while a men's world suit cost $45, impractical in the South. My brothers and sisters often wore hand-me-downs.  As the oldest, I escaped that predicament. 

However, I do remember wearing jeans with patches to school.  And I was one of the lucky kids.  Some boys wore pants with more holes than a West Texas oil patch.  Searching through my memory bank, I think I owned two shirts. That was my wardrobe for the entire school year in the early 50's.

When I spin tales about my growing up experiences, my four grandkids find my description hard to fathom.  No internet. No Nextflix. No Nintendo.  No cell phone.  Less anxiety. They can't imagine it.  (And no, I don't tell them I walked 5 miles in the snow to get to school.) But I did ride my bike to classes for a few years.

Once our 11-year-old granddaughter Megan playfully asked: "PaPa, did you ride a dinosaur to school?" I think she was joking, but perhaps not. With age and experience, you appreciate the memories of the way things once were. But I don't want to return to a time without air conditioning. 

But honestly, I'm sad that today's younger generations will never experience what's it's like to have less in life and still be content. That might give pause to those who believe having more brings happiness. Hardships help you appreciate today's standard of living. That's why I will always value the 1950's.

Artificial Intelligence Heralds Profound Changes

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is a disruptive technology that offers the promise to usher in the next industrial revolution.  However, despite the boom in AI applications,  there are deepening concerns that the technology may negatively impact jobs, national security, privacy and spread misinformation. 

AI is the next evolution in machine learning.  AI technologies enable computers to perform a variety of advanced functions, including the ability to understand and translate written language.  It is capable of creating new content such as text, images or audio as well as analyzing vast amounts of data.  

That's a laymen's definition of the technology.  AI is a board field that encompasses many different disciplines, including computer science, data analytics and statistics, hardware and software engineering, linguistics, neuroscience and even philosophy and psychology.  

AI burst into the American consciousness with the release of ChatGPT, free app developed by OpenAI, an AI and research company.  The app facilitates an almost human-like conversation with a chatbox that answers questions and can assist with tasks such as composing emails, essays or even creating poetry. 

Released in November of last year, CatGPT is the fastest-growing app in history, garnering more than 100 million active users.  Nearly every teenager has downloaded the app on his or her wireless phone.  This writer has been experimenting with the app for months.  Think Apple's Siri on steroids.

One measure of the AI boom is the stock price of firms operating in the AI space, including tech giants Microsoft, Goggle and Open AI.  No firm has benefited more than Nvidia, which has ridden the wave to a 222% increase in market value.  Nvidia makes a powerful chip that's become the workhorse for AI.

AI has attracted the interest of Congress and a legion of critics and champions.  Yet there is no denying there are many innovative applications for AI to automate workflow and processes, reduce human errors and eliminate repetitive tasks.

AI is being deployed in the healthcare industry at a dizzying rate. Since health cost are nearly one-fifth (19.7%) of the total U.S. economy, the potential value of AI in healthcare from the administrative side to the delivery of healthcare has enormous potential to reduce costs and improve efficiency.  

The technology is already being used by the Centers for Disease Control to analyze public health data.  Increasingly, AI is being deployed to assist in analyzing imaging data from MRI's and CT cans. AI can handle some tasks preformed by radiologists, a profession in the throes of declining specialists.

In one example, AI is being used to analyze cell images to determine which drugs are most effective for patients with neurodegenerative diseases.  Conventional computers are too slow to spot changes in neurons when patients are treated with different drugs.

That's just for starters.  AI is being deployed in medical training, to assist medical professionals in clinical settings, remote monitoring of patients and for diagnostics.  One AI software can detect current issues and predict the patient's likelihood of developing the breast cancer in the next several years. 

Beyond healthcare, virtually every industry is looking at ways to incorporate AI into their business. Microsoft and Google are working to integrate cutting edge AI into their search engines.  Engineering firms are finding ways AI can make their teams more effective.  

The software industry is exploring ways to use AI can eliminate the need for certain tasks generally performed by early career or junior programers. Digital news platforms are employing AI to create stories, edited by news people.  Schools are eyeing ChatGPT as a tool for students and teachers.

There is no question AI potentially will replace some workers, especially with accelerated advancements in the technology and industry's rapid integration of AI into their businesses. 

Another issue virtually unreported is the energy and resource drain that will be created with the growth of AI. A report rom the School of Engineering and Applied Science at University of Pennsylvania raises concerns as AI applications begin to scale up exponentially.

An estimate from the Semiconductor Research Corporation predicts the increasing deployment of AI will "soon hit a wall where our silicon supply chains won't be able to keep up with the amount of data created." Computer memory is stored on components made from silicon.

Companies operating AI systems store data in massive facilities all over the country.  These facilities carbon emissions doubled between 2017 and 2020.  These centers consume on the order of 20 to 40 megawatts of power, roughly enough to power 16,000 households with electricity. 

Like many technologies, there is a dark side to AI.  Google's CEO Sundar Pichai is among a growing number of business leaders flagging the capability of the technology to fabricate imagines of public figures and average Americans that are nearly indistinguishable from reality.  

Imagine in a political election AI is used to produce a video and audio fake of a candidate making racist or anti-American statements.  What if the forgery goes viral on social media before it can be detected? These so-called deepfakes have nabbed the attention of the Department of Defense.

In the context of national security, a fake could dupe military or intelligence personnel into divulging sensitive information to an adversary, posing as a trusted colleague.  The Pentagon recently awarded a contract to a startup DeepMedia to design a deepfake detection computer. 

Many in Congress have been calling for guardrails to regulate AI. Before Congress could act, the White House announced  that seven of the nation's top AI developers agreed to guidelines aimed at ensuring the "safe" deployment of AI.  

Amazon, Google, Meta, Microsoft, OpenAI, Anthropic and Inflection agreed to the outline. The guidelines are voluntary and there are no penalties for violating the open-ended agreement.

Regulation often can restrain new technologies in the U.S., while foreign competitors are unleashed to push forward and leapfrog American companies. However, in this instance, there needs to be some rules to prevent the misuse of a relatively new technology by a few bad actors. 

Once AI becomes embedded in every business, it will be too late to govern the technology's applications without major business and political upheaval.  

Democrats Plot To Demonize Justices

A Supreme Court ruling overturning race-based college admissions has reignited smoldering Democrat attacks on the nation's conservative justices.  The incendiary offensive, mobilized by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, aims to delegitimize the court and undermine its decisions.    

Democrats are threatening impeachment against Justice Clarence Thomas while calling for ethics rules stricter than the ones that apply to Congress. A Schumer disciple, Sen. Ed Markey, is championing expanding the size of the Supreme Court to allow President Biden to pack the court with leftist judges.  

Although President Biden has been lukewarm to increasing the number of justices, nonetheless he blasted the court's decisions  as "not normal" and criticized the judges "values system as different."  The outrage is calculated to make the Supreme Court a voter issue in the upcoming presidential election.

The simmering hostility was sparked last year when a leak of a preliminary draft court decision on a case to overturn Roe v. Wade. Even before the court's official ruling, Schumer stood outside the Supreme Court building and railed against Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.

"You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price.  You won't know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions," Schumer hectored.    

Abortion activists, clearly motivated by Schumer's bombast, released the home addresses online of conservative justices.  Protestors showed up at residences, shouting obscenities and brandishing menacing signs. 

The marshal of the Supreme Court pleaded with officials in Maryland and Virginia to enforce state and local laws that "prohibit picketing outside the homes" of justices and their families.  The two governors punted the decision to federal law enforcement, which never acted to end the unruly protests. 

It was shameful to allow such intimidation of justices.  It nearly boiled over when police arrested an armed man near the home of Justice Kavanaugh who had traveled to Maryland with the intent of harming the jurist.  Democrats never made any apologies for their role in fueling the threatening tactics. 

Imagine if the court was considering a challenge to gun ownership and protestors showed up at the private residences of the three liberal justices.  Does anyone believe that the FBI would have failed to disburse the crowd?  Agents would have removed the protestors post haste. 

It is even more preposterous that the marshal for the court was never able to identify who leaked Justice Samuel Alito's draft opinion.  This was a major breach of court decorum.  The leak had to be initiated by a sitting justice or a court clerk.  Yet no one could identify the leaker? That's not credible. 

Once the abortion decision was handed down overturning Roe v. Wade, Democrat surrogates initiated a smear campaign against against Justices Thomas and Alito. The hatchet job has been carried out by ProPublica, an obscure leftwing publication. 

The muckraking online news site is the brainchild of Herb and Marion Sandler, billion former mortgage bankers of Golden West Financial Corp., which collapsed during the subprime mortgage meltdown. The two Democrat donors pledged $10 million a year to fund ProPublica in initial funding.  

Billionaires George Soros and Paul Steiger are also financial backers of the slandering website, headquartered in New York City.  On its IRS disclosure form in 2021, the nonprofit listed $35 million in donations. Financials for 2022 show more than $9.9 million came from two undisclosed donors.    

With that background, it is hardly a surprise ProPublica placed a bullseye on Thomas and Alito, revealing the justices accepted private trips with wealthy patrons and had alleged financial entanglements. Their investigation claimed these same patrons had cases before the Supreme Court.

Neither justice recused themselves, the website reported. ProPublica's allegations were amplified across the mainstream media echo chambers. Democrat Senator Dick Durbin said the revelations were cause for possible impeachment of the justices.  

(Parenthetically, members of Congress indulge in the same sort of behavior that ProPublica accused the justices.  They regularly take trips on donors private planes, vote on legislation that donors advocate and own stock in companies with a vested interest in legislation.)

ProPublica's vilification strategy worked until The New York Post broke a story pointing out that Justice Sonia Sotomayor didn't recuse herself from multiple cases involving book publisher Random House and its subsidiaries, which paid her more than $3.6 million for her 2013 memoir. 

Justice Sotomayor's liberal colleague at the time, Justice Stephen Breyer, recused himself from the case.  He also had received money from Penguin Random House.  Whoops.  And just like that--BOOM--the mainstream media's interest in justices' ethics momentarily fizzled.

But the media campaign against the justices is picking up steam again as senate Democrats are plotting an impeachment strategy with an eye toward invigorating their base prior to the presidential election. Courts are certainly fair game for  legitimate criticism of their decisions.  

But the constant drumbeat of belligerent verbal aggression undermines the legitimacy of the Supreme Court and ignites an open hostility to individual justices, threatening their safety.  This behavior regularly happens under authoritarian governments.  It has no place in America's democracy.  

Social Media's Tragic Impact on Teens

Amid years of mounting evidence of the negative impact on teenagers, social media Goliaths continue to peddle their addictive platforms, placing profits ahead of young people's mental health.   Tech firms operate with legal impunity, ignoring the studies documenting the harm caused by social media.

At the outset, let's stipulate that social media also has positive aspects.  Platforms have facilitated communications, enabled social connections and provide access to a myriad of information and perspectives. However, tech giants have failed their responsibility to clean up the content sewage. 

Teen social media usage soars every year, turning casual usage into an addiction. A Pew Research Report shows the top social media platforms used by young people 11-to-17 years old are:  Youtube, 95%; TikTok, 67%, Instagram, 62%;  Snapchat, 59%; Facebook, 32%; and, Twitter, 23%.

A study by Jean Twenge, psychology professor at San Diego State University, discovered that students who spent five or more hours a day online were 71% more likely to have a least one suicide risk factor. Those include depression, thinking about suicide or attempting suicide.  

Research shows that the average young person spends an average of three hours a day on social media.  The study by Twenge found that the overall suicide risk factors rose "significantly after two or more hours a day of time online."  

A 2018 Children's Mental Health Report documented the negative effects of social media on  adolescents, aged 11-to-17.  Thirty-five percent of participants were classed as poor sleepers and 47% were classified as anxious.  Higher levels of anxiety correlated with increased usage.

While social media companies argue there are benefits to their platforms for teenagers, actual research underscores the dark side of social media.  A Common Sense Media survey of social media users found 70% of teens "feel left out or excluded when using social media."  

The evidence is unequivocal.  

It is no coincidence that teen suicides and depression are rocketing higher.  The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported that suicides in females aged 15-24 have spiraled 87% over the past decade.  Suicides jumped 30% among males in the same age group.

Overall, 22% of high school students in a recent survey said that had seriously considered suicide; 18% admitted they had a suicide plan; and, 10% reported they had attempted suicide at least once.  Female students were at higher risk with 30% claiming they had considered attempting suicide.

Social media apologists will point out there is no direct link between suicide and social media usage.  However, a previously unpublished study from Facebook found Instagram to have harmful effects among a portion of its millions of  users, particularly teen girls.  

Findings indicated that Instagram makes body image issues worse for one in three teen girls. Among teens who reported suicidal thoughts, 6% traced them back to Instagram.  Instagram and Facebook are both owned by Meta.  

Congress has hauled the likes of Meta Chairman and CEO Mark Zuckerberg and other social media bosses to Washington for hearings. Senators and representatives pound tables, haranguing  the executives. Yet there is never any legislative action to hold social media firms accountable.

Zuckerberg hired an army of lobbyists to influence senators and representatives. Since 2017, Meta has poured $100.6 million dollars into lobbying efforts.  As added protection, Zuckerberg funneled an unprecedented $419 million into non-profits aimed out turning out Democrat voters in 2020.

Other big tech firms have parachuted into Washington, reinforcing their lobbying activities.  That's why no legislation will ever be passed to rein in Instagram, YouTube, Facebook, Snapchat or TikTok. Spreading money like fertilizer in Washington turns antagonists into allies.  

Who will make the profiteers change their algorithms that feed an addiction that is killing teenagers?

Turns out the parents of teens are the ones fighting back against steep odds.  The number of families pursuing lawsuits against social media titans has soared to more than 2,000.  Another 350 lawsuits are expected to move forward this year, according to reporting by CBS News "60 Minutes."

Kathleen and Jeff Spence, interviewed on the program, recounted a harrowing story of how their 12-year-old daughter sank into depression and developed an eating disorder after opening at Instagram account.  The teen logged on at age 11, although Instagram requires users to be 13.

The daughter searched instagram for fitness routines that sent her into the ugly underbelly of social media.  Her feed was bombarded with photos of very thin, sickly girls promoting eating disorders.Those disturbing images were delivered by Instagram's algorithms, which push content. 

Her life began a downward spiral by 12 when she began spending five hours a day scrolling through anorexic body images.  Her weight dropped and she drew a picture of herself in her diary, surrounded by her laptop while writing:"stupid, fat....kill yourself."

She began struggling with mental health, depression and her body image. "It made me hate myself," she confessed to a "60 Minutes" reporter.  Her sophomore year she posted on Instagram that she didn't deserve to exist. A friend shared her post with a school counselor who called her parents.

Her parents got help for their daughter.  But in some cases plaintiffs lost their child to suicide. The previously noted Facebook internal document reveals employees knew Instagram was pushing girls to dangerous content, the "60 Minutes" investigative reporter revealed.

If Congress won't protect vulnerable teens, then perhaps the lawsuits will finally force social media platforms to reform their algorithms, built to force feed inappropriate content to users. However, the social media platforms have buildings full of attorneys to protect their profits. 

And the parents' cause suffered a blow when the Supreme Court handed social media titans a major victory in a recent decision.  The justices unanimously rejected two cases aimed at piercing the legal shield adopted 27 years ago to protect internet companies from liability lawsuits.  

That leaves the parents' lawsuits against big tech as the last, best and likely only chance to hold social media firms accountable for their actions.  

Backlash Against Corporate Social Activism

Burgeoning numbers of companies are bombarding consumers with social issues in business and product advertising. But one company, Anheuser-Busch InBev, waded too far, triggering a rebellion that has damaged the brand, torpedoed sales and torched millions of dollars in shareholder value.

The Belgian-based firm's Bud Light marketing vice president  unveiled a tribute to Dylan Mulvaney, a transgender "influencer" who was invited to the White House by President Biden. Not only did Bud Light tout Mulvaney's transition, but the ad guru preceded to bash its customer base.

The veep insulted Bud Light's top consumers, calling them too "fratty," an apparent reference to beer swilling males. The marketing veep gushed that attracting transgender males would expand the customer base, boosting sales.  The decision may go down as the greatest marketing blunder ever.

Compared to last year, retail sales of Bud Light nosedived 25% in the week ending May 13,  That surpassed the 23.3% slump in April. Anheuser-Busch InBev shares plunged 5%, leading to a loss of $6 billion in market value.  Several financial analysts downgraded the stock as sales skidded.

Anheuser is in full retreat. The V-P marketing is on leave as is her boss.   Executives are labeling the Mulvaney linkage "just one influencer, one post and not an ad." Bigwigs all the way to the top of the corporate ladder are making like Pontius Pilate, washing their hands of this smelly muck. 

In a retrenchment, A-B is wrapping itself in the flag.  The company is set to launch a line of camouflage aluminum bottles that promotes the "Folds of Honor" program, which provides scholarships for families of fallen and disabled military service members and first responders.  

For good measure, another A-B brand, Budweiser, is planning a launch of limited edition beer cans featuring images inspired by motorcycle manufacturer Harley-Davidson.  The LGBTQ activists are now threatening their own boycott of the firm for backing away from Mulvaney.  

The usual media suspects--NPR, The New York Times, Washington Post and LA Times--are serving up baloney calling out current Bud Light drinkers for being trans-phobic.  The media echo chamber pompously downplays the loss of market share as trivial to discourage product boycotters.

You could surmise the Bud Light kerfuffle might dissuade other consumer firms from embracing social issues.  Never underestimate corporate herd mentality.  Within weeks, Adidas debuted a transgender model posing in a women's bathing suit. There is a noticeable bulge in the crotch area.

The reaction has been swift among women who are increasingly angered by what they view as misogyny.  Transgender males are increasingly usurping female roles. Why deliberately alienate the people who buy your product?  Sound marketing has been scrapped for social issue signaling.

This is clearly not about sales. Transgenders are not a large, lucrative market. A Pew Research poll conducted in May, 2022, found that 0.6% of American adults are transgender. That is not a typo: 0.6%. Including non-binary adults inches the needle to 1.6%.

These firms are appealing to those who embrace the transgender ideology. Many are being cajoled by big investment firms such as BlackRock, State Street and Vanguard. Others are influenced by activist groups whose clout exceeds the number of members.  

In other cases, a corporation's employees  are increasingly goading leadership into supporting a social cause.  When the Florida legislature passed a bill prohibiting teaching sexual orientation and gender identity to elementary children, employees within Disney insisted the firm take a public stance.

Disney management acquiesced and stirred up a political hornet's nest.  An acrimonious war-of-words has ignited an ongoing feud between Disney and the state's Governor Ron DeSantis and the Republican legislature.  In the process, Disney has lost some of its family entertainment sheen.

Corporate political interference is nothing new.  A case in point: The CEO's of Delta Airlines and Coca-Cola, both based in Atlanta, voiced strong opposition a Georgia voting law in 2021, Despite the corporate pressure, the Republican Gov. Brian Kemp signed it into law.

Allegations of the law's effort to suppress voting proved to be patently false when Georgians turned out in record numbers to vote in the 2022 midterm elections.  Don't expect Coca-Cola or Delta Airlines to issue a mea culpa.  Corporate cowards never admit they were wrong.

Not too long ago corporate America was assiduously apolitical. Businesses lobbied state legislatures, Washington's politicians and local officials, often outside the public's view.  Corporate advertising was reserved for selling products or buttressing the firm's image with its customers.

The larger the firm today the more likely it will be fronting social and political issues.  CEO's feel insulated because few customers ever complain and boycotts have proven short-lived.  However, the Bud Light episode may serve as a red flag that the tide may be turning, if only slowly.

That would be a refreshing development for our democracy. Unelected corporations today carry as much clout as political parties to advance social and political positions.  Consumers hold the power to vote with their dollars against corporate influence. Now they need to use it.    

Opinion: America's Alarming Surge in Bad Behavior

What has happened to civility?  Fisticuffs erupt on airline flights. Rowdy fans are booted from sporting arenas. Road rage turns violent. Classroom scuffles are no longer rare. Office behavior ruffles workers. Online bullying spirals out of control.  Americans are seemingly seething with anger.

As personal conduct has cratered, the establishment blames our political divisions.  Stop and think.  America's politics are a reflection of its voters.  Not the other way around.  American history its replete with political nastiness.  What's changed is the behavior of its citizens.  

Another convenient scapegoat is the pandemic.  Social scientists claim Americans were cooped up so long that it was inevitable that once we emerged from our masked cocoon we would forget our manners. This theory hardly explains the rudeness that pervades our society.

While we are dismissing excuses, quit faulting the frenetic pace of everyday living.  Give me a break. Americans have never earned more, acquired more, spent more, traveled more, felt more entitled and indulged themselves more.  Somehow we believe that previous generations never faced a lick of stress.  

So let's dispense with any justification for incivility.  There is no legitimate reason for disrespectful, aggressive, harassing behavior.  At this point, you might be thinking, "Oh come on, some people have always acted up."  You're right.  But it has become all too common and too widespread.

When a flight attendant gets two teeth knocked out by a furious passenger, that does not reflect behavior even a decade ago.  The Federal Aviation Administration documents that complaints about airline passenger misbehavior is at an all time high.  And it's not improving. 

Just a few weeks ago, a grown man yelled and threatened flight attendants because a baby was crying.  Who gets enraged by an infant that cannot be soothed to your personal expectations?  An angry individual.  One who feels entitled to a flight cabin devoid of humans or at least little colicky ones.

Fan behavior at indoor and outdoor sporting events is turning uglier every day.  People, almost exclusively men, spit on players, throw water bottle missiles at their heads or dump a beer on an unwary player.  Assault and battery charges are a part of an increasing number of games.

Even company offices have evolved into dens of incivility.  A Harvard study conducted over the past 14 years has documented a steady rise in disrespect.  A total of 98% of workers reported experiencing harassment, rudeness, bullying and crude interactions.  The work culture is toxic.

In a strange dichotomy, a recent survey found 62.3% of workers report they are satisfied with their jobs.  Go figure.

Even neighbors get into ugly fights that escalate into violence. A San Antonio man accidentally dumped tree limbs in a neighbor's yard. A argument ensued and ended with a neighbor being stabbed.  Once neighborhoods were safe harbors.  Now ordinary disagreements detonate conflict.  

By comparison, neighborhoods are less intimidating than schools.  A recent report in Education Week counted more than 200,000 assaults by students against teachers in a two-year period.  In the most recent, a middle schooler cursed and attacked his teacher after she confiscated his cell phone.  

These are not isolated incidences.  Such outbursts have been reported in schools across America.  When youngsters feel emboldened to assault their teachers, there should be unholy outrage.  It is an indictment of parenting and schools.

And college age students are not much better behaved.  Speakers on campuses are hectored, shouted down and cursed for expressing viewpoints they consider offensive to their tender sensibilities. What's mystifying is this behavior is tolerated by administrations, which just invites more outrage.

Some experts link these spike in incivility at schools to the sewage known as social media.  Study after study has for years documented the aggressive, disrespectful behavior and harassment on Facebook, Twitter, TikTok and Instagram.  Youngsters rancor toward others online feeds anger offline.

Road rage has reached epidemic proportions.  The AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety released data that 80% of drivers "expressed significant anger, aggression or road rage" at least once during the previous 30 days. Road rages deaths have doubled in the last four years. What's fueling the rage?

Pent up fury is unleashed daily as human beings kill other humans. The media focuses on the instruments of death, failing to consider what roils a person to end the life of another.  More often than not irrational hatred, resentment and revenge motivate the slaughter of innocents, including children.

It is evil by any other name.  Yet society and the media sometimes paint the killers as victims.    

Why doesn't society care more about this simmering violent temperament that percolates the lives of many Americans?  It is a question that goes begging for answers and analysis.  We can't keep blaming mental illness for every killing.  What triggers a "normal" person to murder another?  

The root cause for these madness is elusive and complex.  There is no simple answer.  But one thing is certain, there is no longer a fear of punishment.  Young people and adults appear to be oblivious to the consequences of their actions.  The perpetrators act first without regard for the ramifications.

We live in an era when shared values are tearing asunder.  Society preaches personal values with no norm.  Individualism trumps common societal behavioral expectations. Another person's values are of no concern to an increasing number of Americans. They consider their values more righteous.  

Likewise, society renounces morality as a personal compass.  Our secular world rejects moral guideposts because it suggests a religion or a God controls our lives.  In fact, it is considered immoral to impose any morals on anyone. We each decide for ourselves what is moral and what is not.

Whatever your view on causes, we cannot ignore the alarm bells that our society is descending into chaos.  America can no longer dismiss worsening civility as some phase that will pass.  We need a national conversation about the breakdown of civility.  It it has to start with us.