People don’t wear nice clothes to funerals anymore. Some still do, I’m sure, but many don’t. I haven’t been to a funeral in quite some time — thank God — but I’ve heard enough, and seen enough driving past graveyards, to know something is off in 2026.

You see it outside funeral homes and churches, near the hearse, gathered around an open grave: untucked shirts, jeans, sweatshirts, tennis shoes. People dressed for a quiet night on Netflix, not a solemn goodbye.

Can we really take death seriously if we won’t even take the clothing for a funeral seriously?

Dying custom

Why is it important to wear something nice to a funeral?

At first, the question feels almost offensive — or at least it does to me. My instinct is to snap, “Because it is.” You’re probably the same. Most of us never thought about it. The most obvious social norms rarely come with explanations. They’re absorbed, not argued for — like gravity or the sunrise.

Of course you dress up for a funeral.

But somewhere along the way, that assumption slipped. Now it has to be explained why a tie and leather shoes matter when you go to bury the dead.

When you attend a funeral, you are “paying your respects.” But is there much respect in showing up in jeans and sneakers? No. Some clothes are more formal than others, and some signal more respect than others. Not all clothes are equal. That’s simply how it is. Showing up to a funeral in a hoodie isn’t neutral — it’s a failure to honor the moment.

More than that, it’s a kind of disrespect. It doesn’t take much to put together a decent outfit. It isn’t unreasonable to ask someone to put their best foot forward for a single day. It doesn’t even have to be expensive. If you’re broke — and I’ve been — there’s always Goodwill. Twenty bucks gets you a shirt, pants, even shoes.

Last holdout

Dressing poorly for a funeral is a choice. It used to be a rare one. Now it’s common.

And it isn’t happening in isolation. It’s the endpoint of a broader culture that prizes informality and unconcern.

That culture starts small: not doing more than you have to, not dressing properly unless required, valuing comfort above all else. Casual Friday becomes casual every day. Soon enough, no one dresses up anywhere. And eventually, even the last holdouts — weddings and funerals — give way. For funerals, that day may already be here.

I don’t mean to sound overly gloomy, but there is something especially sad about this particular form of decline. Dressing down means one thing at the grocery store or the DMV. It means something else entirely when we are burying the dead.

It’s connected, I think, to the fact that we still bother with funerals at all — that religious traditions have long-prescribed rituals for burial and mourning. Those rituals reflect a belief that death matters, that it should be marked with care and seriousness.

Can we really take death seriously if we won’t even take the clothing for a funeral seriously?

Maybe not.

RELATED: Back to Black: We need a return to mourning etiquette

Wisconsin Historical Society/Getty Images

Dust to denial

There’s a more sobering truth beneath all this: Funerals themselves are becoming less common. More people are skipping them entirely — opting for cremation, informal memorials, or nothing at all. Sometimes it’s just an obituary. Sometimes not even that. I’ve seen it.

Some say it’s about cost — that funerals are too expensive. I’m not convinced. When people care about something, they find a way. If they cared about funerals, they would have them. If they cared about dressing properly, they would do that too.

The harder truth is that many simply don’t care.

The culture of informality and unconcern seems harmless at first — just more casual manners and a little less effort before leaving the house. But it doesn’t stay contained.

It spreads. It draws more of our lives into its orbit, and eventually there are no suits at the funerals, and then finally, no funerals at all.

​Men’s style, Lifestyle, Usefulness, Funerals, Mourning, Funeral etiquette, Manners, Death, Grieving, The root of the matter 

A Florida man was arrested for allegedly meeting with a minor to have sex, and law enforcement officials believe there may be dozens of other victims.

Aaron Starbird, 42, was arrested in a police sting from Sept. 2025, where an undercover officer was posing as an underage boy on dating apps.

The victim was able to point out Starbird and said how they communicated through an app.

Starbird sent explicit files to the officer he believed to be a boy. Investigators gathered information from communications spanning several weeks and obtained numerous search warrants.

Police performed a traffic stop on Starbird’s vehicle on Nov. 2025 and confiscated his cell phone. He claimed in police interviews that he tried to stop communicating with online juveniles after finding out their ages.

In December, Starbird was arrested by the Orange County Sheriff’s Office for the following slew of charges:

Ten counts of unlawful possession of materials depicting sexual performance by a child;One count of solicitation of a minor via a computer; andOne count of obscene material transmitting information harmful to minors.

In February, the state charged Starbird with one count of solicitation of a minor via a computer and 12 others related to child sex abuse material.

Investigators were able to tag about 77 videos that were indicative of child pornography and were able to identify one of the victims. When that victim was questioned, the victim was able to point out Starbird and said how they communicated through an app.

That victim was 14 years old when he was allegedly molested by Starbird.

RELATED: Elementary school teacher allegedly possessed thousands of files of child sex abuse material

Police are working to identify what they believe could be as many as 30 other victims.

Starbird was a former employee of Orlando Health.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Florida man online predator, Creep meets kids for sex, Aaron starbird, Florida crime, Crime 

“Moshitora,” Japanese shorthand for “what if Trump?,” first emerged in the run-up to the 2016 U.S. election, as policymakers and business leaders in Tokyo tried to make sense of an unpredictable candidate.

The phrase resurfaced in early 2024 as Donald Trump’s campaign regained momentum. This time, it carried more than curiosity. It reflected strategic caution and genuine unease. What would a second Trump presidency mean for Japan’s security, its economic ties, and its role in the Indo-Pacific?

The US-Japan alliance has entered a new phase that looks beyond defense alone.

The question mattered bigly. Since former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s assassination in 2022, Japan has had to manage its alliance with Washington without the personal rapport Abe cultivated over decades. Trump’s first term had already shown how quickly supply chains could become instruments of strategic power and how fast economic policy could merge with national security.

For decades after the Cold War, Western policymakers assumed deep trade ties would soften geopolitical tensions. If nations became economically intertwined, conflict would grow too costly to sustain. That assumption collapsed. Supply chains did not reduce rivalry. They became tools of leverage instead.

Technology, once treated mainly as an engine of economic growth, became a strategic asset. Materials long confined to commodity markets — lithium, cobalt, nickel, and rare earths — moved to the center of national security planning.

The consequences reached far beyond trade policy. Industries once taken for granted became strategic pressure points. Governments began to see commercial flows not as neutral exchanges, but as levers of power. Control over production, processing, and access could shape the balance of global influence.

Trump’s first administration accelerated that reckoning. Washington had to confront dependencies it had ignored for too long. Over the next several years, policymakers turned instinct into structure. Alliances no longer looked like military arrangements alone. They began to function as economic security networks built around trusted supply chains, resilient manufacturing, and reliable access to critical materials.

The results are now visible. In October 2025, the U.S. and Japan signed a framework to secure supply chains for rare earths and critical minerals, with the stated goal of reducing dependence on China’s dominant processing capacity.

Africa shows the stakes even more clearly. In early 2026, Glencore entered a nonbinding agreement with the U.S.-backed Orion Critical Mineral Consortium to sell 40% of its Mutanda and Kamoto copper and cobalt mines in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

RELATED: China is arming itself with minerals America refuses to mine

Bert van Dijk / Getty Images

These mines rank among the world’s largest producers of metals essential to next-generation technologies. The deal aims to diversify supply beyond China’s orbit.

Across Africa, Washington has deepened partnerships to strengthen supply chains for essential commodities, while Japan has pursued its own ties with resource-rich nations.

These efforts go beyond securing raw materials. They concern industrial resilience, strategic autonomy, and influence over the technologies that will define the next era of power. Countries now face a hard question: Who offers long-term commitment, and who merely shows up to extract what it needs?

Japan’s approach reflects foresight. Its economic security policies — diversifying supply chains, investing in semiconductors, and deepening ties with African and Southeast Asian resource producers — show a clear understanding that industrial capacity underwrites national power. In some respects, Tokyo saw this shift coming before Washington did.

The U.S.-Japan alliance has entered a new phase that looks beyond defense alone. Who will build together, mine together, and secure the industrial base behind technological competition? The choices nations make now will help determine which economies and militaries remain resilient enough to compete in the years ahead.

“Moshitora” began as a phrase about a single American election. Its return in 2024 looks, in hindsight, like a warning Japan had already begun to heed. The question now is whether Washington will answer with the same clarity, persistence, and long-term vision.

​Japan, Foreign policy, Moshi tora, Trump, Shinzo abe, Trump administration, Supply chains, Rare earth minerals, China, Opinion & analysis, Rare earths, America first, Diplomacy 

When I find myself agreeing with Democrats more than Republicans on a core liberty issue, I know something has gone badly wrong on the right.

That is where we are.

Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) has shown more urgency about protecting privacy from Big Tech than most Republicans. Republicans, meanwhile, keep covering for companies like Meta in the name of innovation or “anti-regulation.”

Privacy is not a boutique concern for cranks. It protects freedom of movement, assembly, association, and speech. A country that abandons privacy invites tyranny.

If the biomedical security state pushed during COVID looked sinister, wait until Big Tech deploys smart glasses with AI facial recognition.

In February, the New York Times reported, based on internal Meta documents, that the company had revived a 2021 plan to add facial recognition to its Ray-Ban smart glasses. The feature, internally code-named “Name Tag,” would let wearers identify people in real time without their knowledge and pull up information through Meta’s built-in AI assistant. “Dystopian” hardly covers it.

The privacy threat gets worse. According to the Times, an internal Reality Labs memo from May 2025 discussed launching the feature during a “dynamic political environment” to reduce scrutiny from privacy groups. In other words, Meta appears to know exactly how toxic this is and hopes to slip it into public life while the country is distracted by a war.

A new boundary breached

Meta already has access to billions of personal profiles and a long record of treating privacy as a nuisance. Facial recognition in covert wearable cameras would not be a harmless upgrade. It would breach a boundary that should never be breached.

For most of modern life, stepping into public did not mean surrendering your identity to every stranger around you. A person outside his home still retained some anonymity. He could walk, speak, assemble, worship, or attend an event without assuming that every passerby could identify him and connect him to a digital dossier.

Meta’s glasses would end that.

This is how the surveillance state grows: one device, one platform, one “convenience” at a time. The goal is obvious enough — surveil Americans continuously, gather every available scrap of data, and make it available for private exploitation or government abuse.

Republicans should lead the fight against that future. Instead, Democrats have taken the lead. Markey, joined by Oregon Senators Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley, sent Mark Zuckerberg a letter laying out the civil-liberties threat.

“Embedding facial recognition into consumer wearables would vastly expand this surveillance infrastructure, enabling continuous, decentralized identification of members of the public without their knowledge or consent,” the senators wrote. “The deployment of facial recognition technology in smart glasses risks entrenching a system in which Americans are routinely scanned, catalogued, and analyzed as they move through daily life — an outcome fundamentally incompatible with a democracy.”

For once, the Democrats are right.

A doxxing machine

A wearer could blend into a crowd and scan thousands of faces in a single afternoon. The people being scanned would never know. No practical mechanism for consent exists. No opt-out exists. Your privacy would depend on strangers’ self-restraint and Meta’s internal rules.

That is no protection at all.

Now add politics. America is already divided along political, social, cultural, and religious lines. These glasses would function as a doxxing machine — a gift to activists, harassers, and anyone who wants to expose, blacklist, or intimidate another person.

Imagine someone wearing them at a protest, church, synagogue, school-board meeting, rally, or conference. A passing glance could tie a face to a name, employer, relationship status, online history, and web of personal associations. The line between public presence and forced disclosure would disappear.

Markey asked whether Meta had evaluated “the potential for stalking, harassment, doxxing, or government misuse.”

That question answers itself. Those are not side effects. They are among the most obvious uses.

‘We see everything’

The data pipeline should alarm people just as much. Anyone who wants to use the AI functions on these glasses will likely have to run them through Meta’s app. That means Meta and its contractors will receive the footage and other user data and can use the data to train models and refine the system.

A Swedish newspaper already found that workers for Meta contractors had access to shockingly intimate moments from users’ lives. One Kenyan subcontractor put it this way: “We see everything — from living rooms to naked bodies. Meta has that type of content in its databases. People can record themselves in the wrong way and not even know what they are recording. They are real people like you and me.”

Defenders will say smartphones already allow people to spy on one another. That misses the point. Phones are conspicuous. They require effort. Smart glasses make surveillance ambient, easy, and nearly invisible.

RELATED: Your smart thermostat is watching you — it knows your routine and when your house is empty

Photo by Gado/Getty Images

Political malpractice

Republicans should grasp the politics as well as the principle. Getting outflanked by Democrats on privacy, Big Tech, and the surveillance state is malpractice. Young voters already distrust AI. Fighting biometric surveillance and warrantless data abuse should be easy territory for a party that claims to care about liberty.

Instead, Trump has called on House Republicans to pass a clean reauthorization of FISA Section 702 without requiring warrants when federal agencies query Americans’ communications swept up in foreign surveillance. He has also pushed legislation to preempt many state regulations on data centers and AI deployment.

That is the wrong instinct at the wrong moment.

Privacy is not a boutique concern for cranks. It protects freedom of movement, assembly, association, and speech. A country that abandons privacy invites tyranny.

Americans do not want data centers imposed on their communities, fentanyl zombies defecating in the street, chemicals in their food, and camera networks tracking their movements. They certainly do not want strangers stripping away their anonymity with a glance through AI-powered glasses.

If Republicans cannot draw the line here, on a bedrock question of liberty and human dignity, they deserve to lose.

​Ai, Data, Democrats, Doxxing, Ed markey, Mark zuckerberg, Meta, Meta glasses, Opinion & analysis, Privacy, Reality labs, Republicans, Surveillance 

Seattle is already struggling with empty office towers, fleeing businesses, and rising urban decay — but Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck warns that the city’s latest proposal could make things worse than they already are.

“In Seattle, nearly one-third of the office space is empty — 35% at the core. More than a quarter of all of the office space all across the city is vacant. Entire buildings are dark at noon. Elevators that carried thousands of engineers and lawyers and designers now move janitors and security guards through hollow floors where the lights never come on,” Glenn explains on “The Glenn Beck Program.”

“This is New Orleans without the hurricane. It’s not war damage. This is policy that is doing this. And the response from the city leadership shows something that is far more than incompetence. It is intentional destruction,” he adds.

This “intentional destruction” has come in the form of a new tax being imposed in Seattle.

“You make over a million dollars, … 9.9% extra tax,” Glenn says.

“They don’t have any understanding of how an economy works. Seattle’s incoming mayor, Katie Wilson, proposed what she calls a solution now to just the hollowing out of Seattle,” he says, before explaining what he would do instead.

“Here’s what I would do. Fix the problems. Get the poop off the streets. Get the people pooping off the streets. Get the drugs off the streets. Clean the city up, and you won’t have this problem,” he explains. “But that’s not the solution.”

“Seattle is not known for technology. It’s known now for open-air drug markets, sidewalk encampments, retail theft treated as a nuisance instead of a crime. A regulatory climate where starting, running, or expanding a business requires navigating a maze of taxes and mandates,” he says.

“You feel like a criminal if you’re going to run a business. You feel, you know the city is against you, and the state is against you. Even now, Seattle businesses face one of the country’s most aggressive business and occupation taxes,” he continues, pointing out that the regulations caused businesses to leave, and in turn the city decided to start taxing owners of vacant buildings on top of their already steep taxes.

When companies noticed these insane regulations, they understandably chose to take their business elsewhere.

“The employees all followed; the buildings emptied out,” Glenn says.

Now, residents are trying to sell their homes — and they’re getting taxed for it.

“Instead of asking why companies are leaving,” Glenn continues, “city leaders ask a different question entirely. How do we punish the people creating jobs? How can we make their life even harder?”

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​The glenn beck program, Glenn beck, The blaze, Blazetv, Blaze news, Blaze podcasts, Blaze podcast network, Blaze media, Blaze online, Blaze originals, Seattle, Seattle taxes, Seattle mayor, The glenn beck podcast, Blue state, Blue city, Blue city crime, Katie wilson