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…
Ethics Alarms 
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.
This was the Google AI reply.
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:
Your concerns about intrusiveness are shared by several lawmakers who are actively working to repeal the mandate.
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.
When it comes to monarchies, I’m on team Cromwell.
Clang! Thump!
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.
I always thought the Elgin Marbles were glass, shooting marbles like we used to shoot around in grade school and carry in sacks.
(I did too, until I saw them in the British Museum)
We had a pack of dogs get loose in the neighborhood repeatedly recently. The first time this happened the dogs were encircling a chicken coop like sharks in chummed water. One of the dogs was sequestered and returned to its owner.
Most recently however, they went hunting as a pack for free ranging chickens in a neighbors back yard. The very meaty bull dog was sequestered again after having eaten 3 chickens. The neighbor has small children that regularly play in the yard and has a concern for their safety now.
What is the most ethical course of action?
Animal control in this day and age. In my father’s day, gunshot.
No dog was worth one chicken, never mind three.
In recent threads, a discussion of what constitutes a threat that falls outside the bounds of free speech. The bar owner in Wisconsin is the latest to make news, as are Comey’s 8647 shells with another indictment.
Given the power of social media, which capably amplifies the message of traditional media (who hates Trump, and anything else that reeks of “traditional values”…), and given the right conditions can go viral, encouraging more of the same, and is how we got the latest attempt on the President’s life (and will beget more to try), how do we balance free speech v. threats to public officials and figures in this still fairly new frontier?
It’s clear that “free speech” has led to assassinations and multiple attempts of same.
More speech is usually the antidote, but big tech still by and large puts its thumbs on the scale.
I argued that I’d like to see more things hauled in to court (like Comey, and hopefully the bar owner in Wisconsin) to flesh out the boundaries.
Thoughts?
I’ve never really understood the fascination with living royalty, either. When it comes down to it, they are essentially the descendants of the most successful thieves and murderers in whatever region they originated.
Still, they’ve provided fodder for plenty of entertainment, from Blackadder to Wolf Hall, and where would Shakespeare have been without them?
I thought Chuck did a pretty good job of it, and Trump just accepted it as the type of guy-banter he indulges in himself.
Am I the only one who’s noticed the Hyundai television commercial that has only black people in it? Not even any Asians or Hispanics? I can’t find it posted on line. It pops up as “This video is private.” But I have found a PR release that’s worth noting: Hyundai Celebrates Community and Cultural Vibrancy with the “Everyone’s Outside” Campaign for the 2025 Hyundai Tucson Hybrid
Here is the PR blather (long, but worth a skim) with my comments in italics, slightly edited. Imagine if this were an all white commercial and PR release:
Hyundai and its African American marketing agency of record, What? Culture Brands, proudly announces the launch of its latest multicultural There’s that word. campaign, “Everyone’s Outside.” ,,, [T]his new installment celebrates the joy of communal Of course, we’re celebrating an exclusive “community!” and neighborhood moments, and the rich tapestry of culture. There it is again. In a car ad!
The “Everyone’s Outside” campaign uniquely I’ll say! features vibrant community scenes where people of all ages But only of one color: black. are relishing the warm weather. [T]this campaign offers a fresh perspective on everyday life No kidding. It looks like life in 1950s Jim Crow, fully segregated Alabama. including navigating a bustling gas station. Black people can get around in a gas station? An original licensed track by Brooklyn-based musical group Phony Ppl, enhances the energetic and nostalgic feel, Back to the time of Jim Crow? resonating with audiences on multiple levels. Including white supremacists?
“The ‘Everyone’s Outside’ campaign beautifully captures the essence of reconnecting with our communities and the great outdoors while celebrating the cultural vibrancy and shared experiences that define our diverse Diverse? All black? audience.”
“With the ‘Everyone’s Outside’ campaign, we are excited to bring to life the spirit of exploration and community that the 2025 Hyundai Tucson embodies,” said Erik Thomas, director of experiential & multicultural marketing What? at Hyundai Motor America. “With consumers looking for alternative fuel powertrains, the spot poignantly boasts the hybrid, further entrenching the vehicles seamless integration in everyone’s journey.”
“This campaign is a celebration of joy and community resilience. The ‘Everyone’s Outside’ campaign captures the spirit of reuniting and reconnecting, presenting the Tucson as a vehicle that enhances these experiences. However, what truly brings the ‘OKAY Hyundai’ energy to life is our commitment to partnering with talent that understands the energy of our community and its unity,” expressed Christopher McLaughlin, creative director of Culture Brands. That is, only black talent.
Speaking as an anti-authoritarian with meritocratic ideals, I can see at least two points of appeal in living royalty.
First, there’s the presumption that royals have been raised from a young age with leadership skills and responsibility in order to uphold the standards of their position. There’s also the illusion that because they’re not elected, they’re not slaves to PR and can therefore say what needs to be said even if it’s unpopular. Of course, history doesn’t bear out these assumptions.
Second, royals are social focal points, just like any other celebrity. Fame and popularity are a form of influence. People pay attention to royalty, which means that if you have the attention of royalty, you have the attention of lots of other people, and you can leverage that into good favor or even profit. For people who don’t have much else going for them, interacting with royalty is a cheap path to social status and self-esteem. Why challenge the concept of royalty when you have so much more to gain by taking advantage of its proximity?
In the absence of democratized competence, royalty is a simple reference point for social structure. That’s attractive when people don’t know how to create or navigate social structures on their own merits. I think we can do better than that, though.
I learned a new word today: “Enshittification.” Cory Doctorow came up with the phrase, in 2022, to describe how all the digital services that increasingly dominated our daily lives seemed to be getting worse at the same time.
He said it has three phases:
fFrst, a company is “good to users,” drawing people in droves, as funnel traps do Japanese beetles, with the promise of connection or convenience.
Second, with that mass audience consolidated, the company is “good to business customers,” compromising some of its features so that the most lucrative clients, usually advertisers, can thrive on the platform. This second phase is the point at which, say, our Facebook feeds fill with ads and posts from brands.
Third, the company turns the user experience into “a giant pile of shit,” making the platform worse for users and businesses alike in order to further enrich the company’s owners and executives.
I did not know the term but it encapsulates by experience with Facebook. At first, it was the premier site for Rush fans to discuss the Canadian Triumvirate. Then, came the shift in algorthms where we, the Rushinati, were subjected to lesser bands such as Train, Smash Mouth (ugh!), and Marchbox Twenty. Finally, Facebook book let everyone in, thereby invading the sacred space of Rush and All Things Rush. Sheesh.
But, seriously, about two years ago, I noticed a real shift in the site, where it was all advertizing and marketing pages. What was a fun site became a sludge of recommended ads and suggested purchase platforms.
jvb