Friday Open Forum, God Save The King Edition

/ Jack Marshall

As usual, a tour of the U.S. by a major head of state is causing a news stir and ethics issues. Perhaps nothing will ever top the uproar over Nikita Khrushchev’s visit during the Kennedy administration, when Nikita wanted to go to Disneyland and Walt wouldn’t let him in. President Trump has been on good behavior with King Charles and didn’t even slam the monarch on Truth Social after Charles delivered a number of subtle shots at Trump during his speech before Congress.

What is it about the royal family that makes so many Americans go all weak in the knees? My father strenuously objected to it, saying more than 50 years ago that the U.S. public should treat Great Britain’s kings, queens, princes and princes as what they are: embarrassing relics of a feudal system that we rejected and that should have died out in the 18th Century. He said he wouldn’t cross the road we lived on (Brunswick Road, Arlington—it had a “dead end” sign on each end) to greet any of them.

Dad would have probably approved of Mayor Mamdani’s brush off regarding King Charles, as when asked what he would say to the king if the two spoke, answered, “I would probably encourage him to return the Koh-i-Noor diamond.” That’s one of the crowns jewels.

Meanwhile, there is much to talk about in the Wide, Wide World of Ethics. So talk, already…

4 thoughts on “Friday Open Forum, God Save The King Edition”

  1. Here is a link tio a conversation I had on Google AI regarding posters on Threads cheering a warehouse arson.

    https://share.google/aimode/xxODNq0AY8MpY58dR

    I made this point.

    And the people who ghave the greatest grievanceas are those who lost decades of their life for a crime they did not commit. None of them ever burned down the homes of those they deemed responsibile for their injustice- let alone burned down all of civilization.

    This was the Google AI reply.

    That is a powerful point that many critics of the warehouse arson are using to challenge the “entitlement” of the suspect and his supporters.

    The comparison to exonerees—people who have spent 20, 30, or 40 years in prison for crimes they didn’t commit—highlights a massive gap in how people handle extreme injustice:

    • Ultimate Grievance: You’re right; it’s hard to find a deeper systemic failure than losing your life’s prime years to a wrongful conviction. Yet, as you noted, the vast majority of these individuals do not turn to arson or violence against the prosecutors, witnesses, or the state once they are freed.
    • The “Entitlement” Gap: Critics argue that if someone who lost decades of their life can maintain their humanity and work through legal channels for compensation, then burning down a building over $18/hour wages (the reported starting pay at that facility) looks less like a “revolution” and more like a dangerous lack of impulse control.
    • A “Civilization-Ending” Logic: Your point about “burning down all of civilization” reflects the fear that if any grievance—no matter how valid—justifies a “crash out” (burning things down), the social contract falls apart. If everyone who felt mistreated by a “system” (work, dating, law) committed arson, no community could function.

    The debate on Threads has become so heated because one side sees a “hero” fighting a broken economic system, while the other side (where you seem to stand) sees a disturbing trend of people using their personal struggles to justify criminal destruction that others, with far worse struggles, have managed to avoid.

    Do you think this “cheering” for destruction on social media is a temporary trend, or a sign that people are becoming permanently more radical?

    Reply

  2. Beginning in 2027, every new car sold in the United States will be required by federal law to include advanced impaired driving prevention technology. This mandate comes from Section 24220 of the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, which task the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) with finalizing safety standards to reduce alcohol-related fatalities.

    How the Technology Works

    Unlike traditional breathalyzers, these systems are designed to be passive, meaning the driver does not have to perform any specific action to be tested. The technology reportedly includes: 

    • In-Cabin Monitoring: Infrared cameras mounted on the steering column or A-pillars track eye movement, pupil dilation, and head position to detect signs of drowsiness, distraction, or intoxication.
    • Passive Alcohol Sensors: Some systems under development may analyze the cabin’s air quality or use touch-based sensors (like on the ignition button) to measure blood alcohol content (BAC).
    • Behavioral Analysis: AI systems analyze driving patterns, such as erratic steering or lane drifting, to determine if a driver is fit to operate the vehicle. 

    Your concerns about intrusiveness are shared by several lawmakers who are actively working to repeal the mandate. 

    • Legislative Challenges: Bills such as the No Kill Switches in Cars Act (introduced by Rep. Scott Perry) and amendments led by Rep. Thomas Massie aim to defund or repeal Section 24220.
    • Failed Repeal Attempt: In January 2026, a high-profile effort in the House to block funding for the mandate failed in a 229–201 vote. Despite this setback, opponents continue to introduce new legislation, describing the technology as “Orwellian” and a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
    • Advocacy Pushback: Groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) strongly oppose these repeal efforts, arguing the tech is a vital safety standard similar to seatbelts or airbags. 

    I don’t know about other people but I don’t want this in my vehicle. We already have Ignition Interlock Devices (IID) penalties for people convicted of DUI. This could produce false positives and disable your vehicle. The only (partially) good news I’ve heard about this is that it’s unlikely to be technology ready before 2029 or 2030; so, that gives more time to challenge the mandate.

    There are the usual claims about the data will be kept private and unavailable to police and insurance companies but over time that usually falls apart. Like I said, if you’ve been convicted of DUI or even inattentive driving then I have no problem with IIDs but this new mandate is government and technology overreach in my opinion.

    Reply

  4. I would probably encourage him to return the Koh-i-Noor diamond.

    That reminds me of an old joke. Why is the Great Pyramid located near the banks of the Nile? Answer: because it was too big to carry back to the British Museum.

    Reply

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.