Katy Perry’s #HeToo Problem

katy-perry-benjamin-glaze-american-idol-kiss

Just as our country continues to grapple with the serious issues that have been brought to light as a result of efforts on the part of individuals, groups, and movements such as #MeToo and #Time’sUp, along comes an unexpected twist to the societal plotline.

Alleged incidents involving sexual misconduct by one very famous celebrity have Hollywood once again in a social conscious quandary. Mega star Katy Perry is currently suffering through an unfortunate “life imitates art” moment related to her hit song “I Kissed a Girl.”

The lyrics of the song seem to have been a kind of foreshadowing of Perry’s current predicament.

“I got so brave, drink in hand
Lost my discretion…

It felt so wrong
It felt so right
Don’t mean I’m in love tonight

I kissed a girl and I liked it…”

In a real life replay of the lyrical content, the recipient of Katy’s kiss unfortunately didn’t.

Russian journalist and television presenter Tina Kandelaki accused Perry of making non-consensual touches and other advances upon her while Perry was allegedly intoxicated; this according to the New York Post’s Page Six.

Kandelaki told a Russian newspaper that when the two were in attendance at the same private party, a “pretty tipsy” Perry chose Kandelaki “as an object for the manifestation of her passion.”

Kandelaki indicated that, due to her strength training, she had “managed to fight back…and Katy instantly found a new victim for kisses, hugs and dirty dances.”

In a separate incident, male model Josh Kloss has alleged that, while at a party in which the two were in attendance, Perry exposed to her friends Kloss’s private parts, and it was done without having had obtained his consent.

Kloss, who appeared in the 2010 music video for Perry’s song “Teenage Dream,” posted allegations on his Instagram account that Perry, during a party at which they were both gathered, had lowered his pants in front of her friends.

Kloss is evidently troubled by what he sees as a double standard with regard to Perry as a result of her gender.

“Can you imagine how pathetic and embarrassed I felt?” Kloss wrote in one of his posts.

The incident begs the question, What if Katy Perry were a man? The double standard seems to be fairly self-evident.

Men both in and out of Hollywood circles have been accused of similar behavior, and the resultant consequences, which individuals have had to endure, have been swift in arrival and unequivocal in nature.

It is obvious to many that if Perry were of the male gender, the media would have already pronounced her guilty, her accusers would have been instantly believed, her career would have abruptly ended, and she would be considered a social media pariah.

“I just say this now because our culture is set on proving [that] men of power are perverse. But females with power are just as disgusting,” Kloss wrote.

No doubt Perry has amassed a great degree of power as a result of her elevated celebrity status and Hollywood success. In contrast, a male celebrity of equal stature that engages in behavior that falls in the category of sexual harassment would be held accountable by peers, press, and the public alike.

Interestingly, this isn’t the first time that Perry has been accused of sexually inappropriate behavior. Back in 2018, when acting in her capacity as a judge on “American Idol,” Perry generated press coverage for her flagrant flirting with male contestants.

On one occasion in her tenure on the reality show, Perry delivered an on-camera kiss to 19-year-old contestant Benjamin Glaze without having obtained his consent.

What made the kiss particularly insensitive to the point of being cruel was the fact that she acted in the manner in which she did after Glaze mentioned that he had never been kissed before, and shared that he was saving that special moment for a time when he was in a relationship.

Perry essentially tricked Glaze by making him think that he was about to place a kiss on the singer’s cheek. But then Perry quickly turned her head at the last moment, and the young man was a shocked recipient of an unexpected and undesired kiss on the lips from Perry.

One can only imagine how different the reaction would have been had a male acting in Katy’s role stolen life’s first kiss from a young 19-year-old woman.

In 2017 Perry was also caught on-camera taking hold of the bottom of singer Shawn Mendes when he was still a mere teenager.

Perry at one time stated that she was not a feminist, but she later changed her mind and is now a self-described part of the feminist movement. Earlier in the year alongside Anita Hill, Perry was given a Lifetime Achievement in Feminism award by the Diane Von Furstenberg Awards.

If the above described allegations prove to be credible, hypocrisy may not be the only issue that Perry will have to face.

Hollywood Stars of Tomorrow May Be Replaced by Actors of the Digital Kind

ethics-digital-actors-3

The advent of robots that are able to sub-in for many of the job positions that human beings currently hold has altered an economic calculus within our society and an important stability measure as well.

Those who enjoy the status of being gainfully employed and those who dream of limitless future career possibilities are being forced to make some serious adjustments to their individual life plans.

A future in which robot employees replace the human kind has thus far been seen in the food service, manufacturing, and financial industries.

Interestingly, though, just like the rest of us Hollywood presently finds itself in a stare-down with the Brave New World of tomorrow. A similar form of technology to the one that is being applied to the overall labor market is rapidly advancing in the world of entertainment, and the same dynamics are present. Consequently, realistically threatened is one occupational position in particular, that of the Hollywood actor.

Recent advances in digital effects, combined with artificial intelligence, are bringing into reality the all digital actor, i.e., a complete and convincing digital reproduction of a real life human actor.

Similar tech-based techniques have been used to bring about a return to the small and big screen the images of actors who are no longer with us. A digital version of Peter Cushing  was used to reprise his role in the Star Wars film “Rogue One.”

It is becoming more and more routine to scan the face and body of an actor prior to starting a project, so that a digital stunt double can be used, if necessary, as a stand-in for action scenes.

This year, for the entire length of the film, the major studio movie release “Alita: Battle Angel” utilized a computer-generated actor to play the central role of a cyborg.

Two major fall releases, “Gemini Man” and “The Irishman,” will use de-aging digital effects to create younger versions of the stars of the films. The two films are examples of a new actuality in Hollywood, where actors can portray a character of any age, notwithstanding their own individual birthdays.

“Gemini Man” star Will Smith, who is now 50-years-old, recently explained his new film’s plot to the entertainment press. The actor is depicted in the movie as battling against a younger clone of himself. The technology allowed the creation of a digital double of Smith that has the ability to act in scenes simultaneously with the star.

“There’s a completely digital 20-year-old version of myself that can make movies now,” Smith shared with reporters.

Another fall movie, “The Irishman,” features 75-year-old Robert De Niro and 79-year old Al Pacino playing labor union leader Frank Sheeran and union activist Jimmy Hoffa, respectively. Both actors appear in the film at disparately different ages in their lives via the use of digital de-aging effects.

The same technology created younger versions of actors Michael Douglas and Michelle Pfeiffer in “Ant-Man” and “The Wasp,” Samuel L. Jackson in “Captain Marvel,” and Anthony Hopkins in the first season of “Westworld.”

At a time when Hollywood studios routinely focus on the franchise rather than the individual star, and when so much of production is being brought to fruition via computer graphics, it is logical that in the future many entertainment executives will use logistic and financial reasoning to pursue a fully computer generated production, including the outright replacement of live actors themselves.

Research in the methodology and artistic refinement of digitally duplicating human beings is rapidly advancing. A studio specializing in digital humans, Digital Domain, created the character Thanos for the film “Infinity War,” and has been doing extensive research and development in a division aptly called the Digital Human Group.

The idea of non-human actors presents distinct advantages for modern-day filmmakers who would love to see a set free from tiresome retakes, bloated budgets, and demanding divas.

The Agenda-laden Reboot of ‘Party of Five’

image

That Hollywood would be walking hand-in-hand with the Democratic Party in an effort to shape the mindset of the culture-at-large is nothing new.

However, the idea that entertainment products would have morphed into super-sized mallets that would then be used to hammer left-wing agendas into folks’ heads is.

The routine insertion into entertainment content by Hollywood of “woke” themes and characters is clearly illustrated in a highly altered supposed reboot of a previous 1990’s television show, “Party of Five.”

The original “Party of Five” ran from 1994 to 2000 and starred Neve Campbell, Scott Wolf, Matthew Fox, and Lacey Chabert. The series dealt with the Salinger family’s five children, who were forced to fend for themselves after their parents were killed in an accident by a drunk driver.

Hollywood’s updated version, which airs on the Disney-owned cable network Freeform, has none of the original characters and is missing a majority of the themes that were present in the initial “Party of Five.”

The redesigned show features a Mexican family in which sibling children are forced into orphan-hood when their mom and dad are deported.

In reality, the series is not actually a reboot but rather a radical re-imagining that utilizes one of the favorite memes of the left.

The original show’s setting was San Francisco, and it had a run of six seasons. It aired on Fox and helped to launch the careers of its cast, including one particular co-star, Jennifer Love Hewitt.

Despite its having been on the air more than two decades ago, the original show features themes that to this day continue to resonate with viewers.

Even though the series was categorized as one designed to attract teens, the issues with which the Salinger family had to deal included a character’s battle with cancer, another character’s battle with alcoholism, a young woman who was a victim of domestic violence, and naturally the show’s primary focus of the children being minus parental figures.

Because the series had relatively low ratings in its first and second seasons, the speculation at the time was that it might not be renewed. However, after it won the 1996 Golden Globe Award for Best Television Series in the drama category, its ratings and popularity grew for most of the remainder of the show.

Original creators Chris Keyser and Amy Lippman are spearheading the storytelling in the revised version, although the two showrunners have seen fit to abandon the original characters and plot line.

Lippman told The Associated Press that she and Keyser had turned down previous offers to bring the show back over concerns that they did not want to incorporate the same story line with new actors. But Lippman also indicated that the pair had changed their minds after reading front-page stories about children being separated from their parents.

“We have told this story before but it was imaginary,” Lippman said. “Now it’s actually a story that is playing out all over the country.”

“In the previous show, we didn’t need to be specific to a culture or a political climate,” Lippman added. “This family is very concerned about [its] status.”

Lippman noted that the show hired a mostly Latino writing staff.

A trailer was recently released that spotlights the deportation and immigration story line featuring five Hispanic children who struggle to survive following their parents’ deportation to Mexico.

The trailer shows the parents being separated from their children, opening with an inflammatory scene that shows the family patriarch being asked for his papers and being led out of a restaurant by government law enforcement.

Although the first episode’s airing has yet to be announced, reports indicate that it will hit the airwaves in late 2019, just in time for the pre-election mind manipulation of the public.

The Separation of Church and Search

shutterstock_245047444

Google has been busy of late laying down a track record of bias against conservative, pro-life, and Christian content.

Credible reports indicate that the tech giant has been manipulating searches on the part of participant users to facilitate end results that favor liberal outcomes and simultaneously suppress conservative content.

Google, via YouTube, has removed videos of Prager U, and Live Action and demonetized YouTuber Steven Crowder’s channel as well as Dr. Michael Brown’s Christian ministry, among others.

Concordia Publishing House, the publishing arm of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, had an ad disallowed due to the fact that items in the promotional materials and website postings refer to “Jesus and/or the Bible.”

In early 2019, a Google software engineer became a whistleblower and agreed to go on record to provide an inside witness in support of the premise that the tech company has a bias against Christians.

Hostility by Google regarding the tenets of Christianity comports with the politics of Silicon Valley and in particular the political ideology endemic within the search giant’s corporate culture.

James Damore, an engineer who was terminated by Google, filed a class action lawsuit last year, alleging that the tech giant harassed him and others over their right-of-center political views. Damore had written a memo that characterized the environment within the company as a “politically correct monoculture.”

This descriptive was recently made manifest when Google-owned YouTube suppressed an advertisement for a charity whose purpose is to provide assistance and support to military veterans. The explanation given for the suppression of marketing expression was that the ad in question contained the keyword “Christian.”

Keywords are routinely utilized in online advertising to allow advertisers to have their ads appear in search results whenever potential customers who are conducting internet searches type in a particular term or phrase.

Chad Robichaux, a Marine veteran and former MMA fighter, started a charitable foundation called the Mighty Oaks Warrior Program in order to serve veterans and their families in their battles to recover from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

Robichaux became a Marine at age 17 and served eight tours in Afghanistan, where he was part of the Joint Special Operations Command Task Force and earned a Medal of Valor for his service to the nation.

The marketing team of Robichaux’s charitable organization attempted to publish an ad to promote an episode of the group’s “Mighty Oaks Show” that highlighted ways in which the Christian faith assisted a Korean War veteran in finding healing.

“So one of the keywords to boost the ad was the word ‘Christian,’ which we use regularly,” Robichaux told Faithwire. “The ad was denied specifically because of the use of the word ‘Christian.’”

Robichaux posted a screenshot on Twitter of an email that he received from Google, which indicated that the keyword “Christian” was “unacceptable content” and a “potential policy violation.”

According to Robichaux, the group has run ads with the keyword “Christian” for years. In 2019 alone, the group had 150,000 impressions on this word in its ads. However, because it appeared to be a new restriction, members of the group called the Google helpline. They were told that Google’s new criteria prohibited the use of the word “Christian.”

YouTube responded on Twitter, stating, “We know that religious beliefs are personal, so we don’t allow advertisers to target users on the basis of religion. Beyond that, we don’t have policies against advertising that includes religious terms like ‘Christian.’”

Google’s explanation seemed coherent, possibly even one that had been made in good faith, with a line of reasoning based on an ostensible policy of separation of church and search. However, Robichaux produced evidence that Google’s policy treats some religions as more equal than others.

Mighty Oaks proceeded to run the exact same ad with the keyword “Muslim” in place of “Christian.” Perplexingly, the ad was approved.

The two screenshots Robichaux provided stood in stark contrast to one another. The first showed that the word “Christian” had been flagged, while the second showed that Robichaux’s group had been given the green light to use the keyword “Muslim.”

The above example indicates that Google, the company that holds the key to the information door of the digital world and also owns the number one global video portal, has an animus toward a faith to which a majority of our nation’s residents adhere.

In light of Google’s selective application of its business policies, it is appropriate to examine the legislative privileges bestowed upon the tech giant. It is also fitting to question whether or not anti-trust law should be used to restore competition in the market over which Google currently reigns.

Liberal Rants Aren’t Silencing ‘Lion King’’s Box-office Roar

lionking-920x584

Editors at the Washington Post recently made the inane decision to publish the radical ramblings of Dan Hassler-Forest, assistant professor in the Media Studies Department of Utrecht University, which is located in the Netherlands.

In an entertainment world that produces excessively violent, sexually aggressive, and politically correct product to the max, Hassler- Forest makes the nonsensical assertion that the plot line of Disney’s current iteration of “The Lion King” is a fable that is riddled with fascist ideology.

“The Lion King” is a photorealistic computer-animated remake of Disney’s conventionally animated 1994 film of the same name. The movie’s plot line revolves around a young lion named Simba, who struggles to accept his place as the rightful king of his nation after his father Mufasa is murdered by his uncle named Scar.

Because the story involves a monarchy in which lions comprise a ruling class, Hassler-Forest concludes that the film depicts “a society where the weak have learned to worship at the feet of the strong.” Hassler-Forest also contends that the movie “presents a seductive worldview in which absolute power goes unquestioned and the weak and the vulnerable are fundamentally inferior.”

Using Hassler-Forest’s argument as a basis, one would have to conclude that a vast majority of folk legends, fairy tales, and classic fables featuring kings, queens, princes, and princesses will eventually be forced to face the chopping block.

In addition to the Washington Post piece, the metropolitan media critic community is generally slamming “The Lion King,” giving it a dismal 55% rating on the Rotten Tomatoes aggregation website. Critics thumbing their respective noses at the movie include those from the Boston Globe, Wall Street Journal, Rolling Stone, and NPR.

Despite the Washington Post’s hit piece and the critics’ jabs at “The Lion King,” the public is giving it a whole lot of love, grading the film with an A rating on CinemaScore and additionally making it a record-breaking blockbuster at the box office.

“The Lion King” has taken the record for a July opening, with $185 million gross, an amount that not only outperforms pre-release forecasts but also bests the previous July record holder, “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2,” which took in more than $169 million. The movie is also the second largest debut of the year so far, trailing behind only one film, “Avengers: Endgame.” “The Lion King” reboot has additionally topped another Disney live-action remake, “Beauty and the Beast.”

The idea for the story on which “The Lion King” is based first arose during a conversation between senior executive Roy E. Disney (son of Disney co-founder Roy O. Disney), Dreamworks co-founder Jeffrey Katzenberg, and first president of Disney Animation Peter Schneider. (The conversation took place in the late 1980s on a plane to Europe to promote “Oliver & Company,” an early Disney animated musical film adaptation of Charles Dickens’s “Oliver Twist.”)

As “The Lion King” idea was being developed, Katzenberg added his own thematic material involving coming of age and death, and some ideas from his own personal life experiences. Katzenberg has stated that “The Lion King” “is a little bit about myself.”

Although he may be a died-in-the-wool liberal and has had his share of rotten political ideas, Katzenberg is no fascist.

The new live action reboot of the film seems to have been packaged so that it would escape the unfavorable judgments of left-wing gatekeepers. It features a predominantly African-American cast, with a story that takes place in Africa. The voices in the film include those of Donald Glover, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Alfre Woodard, John Kani, Beyoncé Knowles-Carter, and James Earl Jones, who reprises his role of Mufasa from the original film.

It is preposterous that these celebrities would become involved with a movie that had fascistic undertones. The same for Elton John, who along with Tim Rice wrote several evergreen tunes for the original animated version and have contributed a new song for the reboot titled “Never Too Late.”

Thankfully, moviegoers are not buying the whole fascist meme. They are, however, expressing their delight with Disney’s fanciful remake by buying tickets in droves.

Jeffrey Epstein Case Cloaked in Mystery

screen-shot-2015-01-03-at-5.23.51-pm-e1420298532896

The mystery entangling the main protagonist in the Jeffrey Epstein drama is no doubt more vast and intricate than mainstream media sources would have us believe.

Allegations against the multi-millionaire are monstrous. Scores of sexual abuse offenses involving young women are alleged to have taken place between the years 2002 and 2005.

The evidence gathered by the Palm Beach police, which began in 2005, was reportedly massive in quantity. However, Democrat prosecutor Barry Krischner inexplicably came up with a single count with which to file criminal charges against Epstein, that of soliciting prostitution. Kirschner offered Epstein what appeared to be an outrageous deal involving zero jail time.

One couldn’t help but notice that Epstein was known to be a friend and mega-donor to big-name Democrats, which included the likes of Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and John Kerry.

According to his own lawyers, Epstein was part of the original group that conceived the Clinton Global Initiative. Former President Clinton was reportedly a 26-time passenger on Epstein’s private plane, which was known as the “Lolita Express.” Allegedly, also along with the former president during a 2002 trip to Africa were passenger-actors Kevin Spacey and Chris Tucker.

Local police chief Michael Reiter was reportedly outraged at the time and sought help with the state case from federal prosecutors. The then-U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, Alex Acosta, initiated a federal investigation that culminated with Epstein entering into a 2008 deal in which he pleaded guilty to two state prostitution charges, registered as a sex offender, and paid restitution to three dozen victims that were identified by the FBI. He was sent to prison.

Epstein’s jail time, though, was handled by Democrat officials, who apparently saw to it that he would enjoy the luxury of his own private wing and would additionally have the ability to spend his days at his home during the 13-month sentence. He was also given a subsequent year of house arrest in Palm Beach, Florida.

Epstein’s victims subsequently filed a lawsuit under the federal Crime Victims Rights Act. The court determined that federal prosecutors handling the Epstein sexual abuse case had violated the rights of his victims by keeping secret the deal that they had reached with him.

Adding to the controversy over how the case was handled is an underreported statement that Acosta made, which carried with it the implication that interference with the disposition of Epstein’s case may have taken place, and the interference may have emanated from a government source.

As reported by the Daily Beast, Acosta indicated that he had been told Epstein “belonged to intelligence,” that the matter was “above his [Acosta’s] pay grade,” and that he was to “leave it alone.”

Epstein reportedly entered the financial business world, taking a job for a period of time with investment bank Bear Stearns and subsequently leaving the firm in 1981. According to the Miami Herald, Epstein was a “key federal witness in the criminal prosecution of two prominent executives with Bear Stearns.” The executives were later acquitted.

Reports dealing with Epstein characterize him as a billionaire and a money manager. Interestingly, the man doesn’t appear to be either. He has not been ranked or listed on the Forbes 400 list. According to Forbes, “…there is scant proof he holds a ten-figure fortune.”

The manner by which Epstein became wealthy is an enigma. His fortune reportedly comes from his money management firm, The Financial Trust Co., which is located in the U.S. Virgin Islands. However, the Wall Street trading desks don’t know of Epstein’s transactions, nor do his dealings appear in business trade publications as would be expected.

Little to no information regarding a client list or other records has thus far been made public by The Financial Trust Co. One known former Epstein client is retail billionaire Leslie Wexner, who reportedly stopped doing business with Epstein more than 10 years ago.

According to reports, Epstein employed no portfolio managers or analysts. Instead he purportedly handled by himself investment decisions involving tens of billions of dollars.

Epstein seemed to be able to rub elbows with the rich and famous even after he bore the stigma of registered sex offender. One might think that after the #MeToo scandals in which Spacey, Harvey Weinstein, and Les Moonves became embroiled, the highly recognizable level-three registered sex offender would be persona non grata at entertainment industry events.

Not so. In late 2010 Epstein held a dinner party for Great Britain’s Prince Andrew at his New York 71st Street mansion, with guests that included Chelsea Handler, Katie Couric, Woody Allen, Charlie Rose, and George Stephanopoulos. In 2011 Epstein attended a “billionaire’s dinner” along with Silicon Valley celebrity CEOs Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk. And in 2016 Epstein was in attendance at the celebrity filled premiere of the Warner Bros. film “Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice.”

Epstein’s is a saga that involves some of the nation’s most wealthy and powerful, those individuals whose status affords them the opportunity to hobnob in elite circles that stretch from East Coast to Left and beyond.

Details involving the case are still in the process of unfolding and probably will be for a long time to come. So, too, will its foul nature, drama, and mystery.

Corporate Virtue Signaling

screen-shot-2019-07-02-at-3.58.24-pm-800x350

Colin Kaepernick recently voiced his complaints to Nike executives about the company’s plans to release patriotic themed sneakers that featured a Betsy Ross flag on the back portion of the shoes.

The sports apparel firm responded to the former NFL quarterback’s politically correct ridiculousness with complete capitulation and proceeded to pull the Air Max 1 USA shoe from the market.

Nike actually has a history of pandering to the left, which started well before the recent sneaker fiasco took place. The company offended a whole slew of its customers when it named the National Anthem-kneeling Kaepernick as the face of its formerly successful “Just Do It” campaign.

Nike is not alone in its mixing of business and politics. In truth, many of our companies have hopped on a leftist bandwagon, ushering in a “progressive” era of corporate virtue signaling.

“There’s a troubling trend among giant corporations using this wealth and power to force liberal dogma on an unwilling people. As liberal activists have lost control of the judiciary, they have turned to a different hub of power to impose their views on the rest of the country. This time it’s private power…,” Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) stated in a June speech given to his colleagues in the U.S. Senate.

The senator is correct. Corporate capitulation to liberal demands has snaked its way throughout the business world. From Left Coast entertainment companies to East Coast conglomerates, business entities have even seen fit to weigh in on individual state legislation, with top-down executive elites wielding economic power as a weapon to undermine the legitimate legislative process of our representative democracy.

One glaring example that the country lived through in 2016 was brought to the public, courtesy of the National Football League (NFL). The NFL had objected to a Georgia state bill that had at its core individual religious liberty.

The bill was characterized by the press at the time as creating legal discrimination against gay and lesbian individuals. After similar bills in Mississippi and North Carolina emerged, it prompted a letter, which was signed by 100 companies that were lobbying against the state measures. One company, PayPal, actually ended up removing 400 jobs from North Carolina in an apparent act of reprisal and display of newfound corporate political power.

The National Basketball Association moved the 2017 All-Star game out of Charlotte, North Carolina, as an expression of protest against another of the state’s laws, which required transgender individuals to use a restroom that corresponds to the gender with which they were born.

Google, Amazon, Apple, and Facebook joined with other businesses in Texas to denounce bills in the state legislature that were claimed to have had the potential to inflict harm against individuals based on their sexual preferences. An online letter was posted, which was signed by the aforementioned businesses as well as other major entities, including PayPal, Pepsi, Unilever, Salesforce, IBM, and Ben & Jerry’s.

Numerous other companies have been racing in a political direction, one that is almost always left-of-center.

This year’s Super Bowl featured a Gillette ad that denounced “toxic masculinity,” which resulted in considerable backlash from sports and non-sports fans alike. Undeterred, the shaving supply giant doubled-down in its approach with a second commercial containing the same theme.

Since the #MeToo movement expanded out from Hollywood green rooms to corporate board rooms, businesses have become more sensitive to feminist causes. When the people of Georgia, via their representatives, revised their existing abortion laws, entertainment companies, which included Disney, Netflix, and Warner Media, threatened to inflict damage on Georgia’s film production industry unless the state acceded to their prescribed liberal dictates. A full-page advertisement bearing the signatures of hundreds of business heads appeared in The New York Times, attacking the legislative legal protections for pre-born humans.

Yet, when it comes to film production sites, Hollywood’s self-absorption seems to blind it to its own hypocrisy, as companies continue to film in locales such as the United Arab Emirates, Tunisia, Jordan, etc., places in which women face far more restrictive laws than those found in the U.S.

Other examples of how the scent of politics is wafting out of some of our nation’s largest corporate headquarters include the announcement from Bank of America that it would no longer lend money to those who operate immigration detention centers and private prisons. The institution followed in the footsteps of JP Morgan Chase and Wells Fargo, which had also severed business ties with private prison operators.

Major businesses in the United States used to shy away from taking positions that might offend a segment of their potential purchasing base. Not so anymore. Like a dizzying number of other radical changes that our present culture is undergoing, the notion that corporations would be wise to remain apolitical appears to have been tossed in the graveyard of forgotten business practices.