I have long planned on writing a thorough post about how much the United States, its culture, its future as a viable democracy and its avoidance (so far) of a close call with progressive neo-totalitarianism owes to Elon Musk. This isn’t it. However, once again he has used his boundless wealth and creativity to strike down an engine of cultural indoctrination and Orwellian twisting of knowledge and history. Buying Twitter and ending its flagrant partisan bias was a landmark in American freedom of speech, one that may well have made the election of Donald Trump possible. His latest adventure may be even more important.
He has launched Grokipedia, the desperately needed alternative to Wikipedia. It is still a work in progress, as Musk admits, but by being AI-driven (the bot in charge is Elon’s Grok), the online living encyclopedia avoids the progressive bias and vulnerability to partisan manipulation that had caused me to only resort to Wikipedia when the topic was immune from political bias.
Harvard College’s Office of Undergraduate Education issued a 25- page report sent to faculty and Harvard College students this week. Incredibly, it revealed that more 60% of the grades awarded to Harvard undergraduates are A’s, which, of course, means that the school’s standards of performance are elusive at best. The report concluded that Harvard’s current grading system is “damaging the academic culture of the College.” Ya think? It is more than that. Such low standards of excellence mean that a Harvard diploma, which the world accepts as powerful evidence of merit and superior intellectual skills, is a fraud.
The report drew on years of data on student grades and course evaluations, as well as surveys of faculty and student leaders. A faculty committee found earlier this year that undergraduates often prioritize other interests over classwork…you know, like protesting in favor of terrorists and against Jews. Still, the report found that the amount of time students say they spend on coursework outside of class each week has remained stable over the past two decades.
Nah, there’s no mainstream media bias! Lawrence O’Donnell, right up there with the most shameless Axis media hacks in captivity even compared to the rest of MSNBC, usually goes his merry way slamming Republicans, conservatives and President Trump, avoiding inconvenient facts, objectivity and balance at all costs, appealing only to American who don’t want news or fair analysis, just confirmation of their own world view. When people decry the harsh division in American society today, O’Donnell is one of the prime villains, in part because he has been championing “advocacy journalism” ( as in unethical journalism) for so long.
Here’s his Ethics Alarms dossier. The last time I bothered to mention him at all (he’s always biased and unethical: The Julie Principle applies), was last year when I elevated him from mere Unethical Broadcast Journalist to Ethics Corrupter. Yes, I defended O’Donnell once…for being caught on video screaming at the MSNBC staff and shouting “fuck” among other epithets. I don’t think anyone’s most embarrassing private moments should be made “viral.”
However, this time attention should be paid, as Willy Loman’s widow says at the end of “Death of a Salesman.” O’Donnell snapped on the air yesterday and began denigrating Scott Jennings, the articulate, restrained token conservative and Donald Trump advocate on CNN’s on-air team. Jennings does a superb job vivisecting the usually emotional, knee-jerk, woke Trump-Deranged fury that he encounters on the various panels and in the numerous discussions he participates in, providing a much-needed counterpoint on CNN, which has evolved into MSNBC lite: reliably unethically biased, but with occasional outbreaks of non-partisan reality.
For some reason a sole voice of non-Axis perspective on a rival network is deeply offensive to O’Donnell. How dare Jennings defend President Trump? How dare he undermine the perpetual efforts of the news media to destroy him and defeat his policies? The Unethical Rant of 2025 was the result. Here is the whole amazing thing:
The 90-page report is titled “The Biden Autopen Presidency: Decline, Delusion, and Deception in the White House.” (Might have tried to be a bit more restrained there, partisan-wise…) The report documents how Biden’s inner circle ran the government when he could not, while concealing his cognitive deterioration, strictly staging his appearances and controlling Biden’s decision-making. Committee Chair James Comer (R-KY) said the findings raise “constitutional and criminal concerns” about the validity of executive actions taken between 2021 and the end of his term in office.
Yes, that seems like a fair assessment. As is usual in such matters, the Democrats on the committee released the obligatory “this is a partisan witch hunt” rebuttal, but the evidence throughout the report seems beyond reasonable dispute. The evidence does not prove Biden’s staff acted without authority, the Democrats say, because it is always nearly impossible to prove a negative. Right. That’s the best they have?
To save us both time, read the Washington Examiner’s extensive report on the report, here. My considered, measured analysis: Holy crap!
So the question is, “Now what?” At the bare minimum, the Department of Justice must revise its guidance on the use of the autopen on Presidential Executive Orders. A 2005 DOJ memo held that Presidents can use the autopen for official documents, but it wasn’t until President Barack Obama used it to sign legislation in 2011 while he was abroad that the gates were opened for the Biden team’s abuse.
A lot needs to happen in light of this confirmation of our worst fears. I’ll post about that in a follow-up, but reader suggestions are welcome.
Bill Gates, nerd and “on the spectrum” sufferer that he is, also has the advantage of being sufficiently rich that he is insulated from Leftist fury when he defies wokist cant. Today the climate change scam collective is presumably freaking out because Gates has issued a memo saying, in effect, “Oopsie! What a stupid I am! I let a bunch of agenda-driven scientists and lying (or ignorant) activists convince me to waste billions of dollars on their dishonest hustle! Oh well, live and learn…”
Because I can’t let crap like this pass; I’m sorry, I just can’t.
The headline in the Times says, “Trump Says a Recent M.R.I. Scan Was ‘Perfect,’ and He’d ‘Love’ a Third Term”: President Trump made the comments on the second day of his trip to Asia. The Constitution limits presidents to two terms, but Mr. Trump has suggested he might try to circumvent it.” No, he didn’t say anything of the sort. The President said he was healthy, and that he would “love to do it,” as in a third term. That does not suggest that he would try to circumvent the Constitution. When I say I would love to have Elon Musk’s resources, and I would, it does nor mean that I am tempted to rob him. If I say I would love to spend a night with Sydney Sweeney, it does not mean I am plotting to abduct her.
My major concern is the very beginning of the interview, in which Attia, whose specialty is human longevity, says, “At 75, both men and women fall off a cliff…. At the population level, it’s unmistakable what happens at the age of 75.” The statement has special resonance for me, as my birthday is December 1 (known locally as “Jack Finding His Father Dead in a Chair Day”). I don’t look forward to falling off any cliffs.
To frame the discussion with the threshold question to begin most ethics inquiries, “What’s going on here?”
1. The doctor is irresponsible and lying. He doesn’t say that statistically, there is a definite, measurable decline in human health as a result of aging if one is looking at the human population as a whole. He says “At 75, both men and women fall off a cliff,” which will be heard as “At 75, all men and women fall off a cliff.” That is quite simply not true. It certainly isn’t true for my family, as my mother, father, and grandmother all were lively, productive, engaged and active well into their late 80’s. I just got a Facebook post from Pat Boone showing him training in a gym; he also does a weekly radio show on the Sirius ’50s channel in which he is witty, erudite, funny and except for a little hoarseness, immediately recognizable as the same guy who sang “April Love.” Pat’s 91. My next door neighbors are a decade older than me, and as far as I can see and hear, they are as active and lucid as ever, and I’ve known them for almost 45 years.
Item:The Democratic Mayor of Chicago hits the zenith of Orwellian NewSpeak and progressive “It isn’t what it is” gaslighting. Plus he’s an idiot.
Asked about “illegal aliens” in Chicago by a reporter, Mayor Brandon Johnson actually said, “We don’t have illegal aliens. I don’t know if that’s from some sort of sci-fi message for which you’ve had.”
Chicago has lots of illegal aliens, which is the accurate term for non-citizens (aliens) who are on U.S. soil illegally.
The reporter explained that he was using the accurate legal term, and Johnson, against all odds, made an even more ridiculous remark. “Listen, the legal term for my people were slaves,” he said. “You want me to use that term, too?”
Well, yes, if one is to referring to the period in which “his people” were, in fact, slaves, called slaves, sold as slaves, and referred to themselves as slaves.
“Let’s just get the language right,” the mayor continued. “We’re talking about undocumented individuals that are human beings. The last thing that I’m going to do is accept that type of racist, nasty language to describe human beings.”
Just as calling slaves “slaves” isn’t racist, calling illegal aliens “illegal aliens isn’t “racist.” “Undocumented individuals that are human beings” (Catchy!) are, in fact, illegal aliens.
“The White House cannot simply be a museum to the past. Like America, it must evolve with the times to maintain its greatness. Strong leaders reject calcification. In that way, Trump’s undertaking is a shot across the bow at NIMBYs everywhere.”
—-The Washington Post editors, in an Editorial not only defending the President’s East Wing overhaul for a long-needed ballroom, but implying that he is a strong leader.
See! I’m smart! I’m not dumb like everyone says! The Post editorial duplicates the arguments I made here. It’s not a particularly ingenious point of view; it should be obvious to anyone capable of thinking through the orange mist of Trump hate.
Writes the Post: “It is absurd that tents need to be erected on the South Lawn for state dinners, and VIPs are forced to use porta-potties. The State Dining Room seats 140. The East Room seats about 200. Trump says the ballroom at the center of his 90,000-square-foot addition will accommodate 999 guests. The next Democratic president will be happy to have this.”
Now watch Post staffers quit in a huff, and laugh as my Facebook friends proclaim that Armageddon is here. The Comments on the Post are a window into the mental wasteland that D.C. Trump Derangement has wrought. The Washington Post actually gives Donald Trump credit for doing the wise, smart, and necessary thing, and these are the first 10 comments I read:
“As the editorial board compares building a backyard deck to a 90,000 sq. ft. ballroom that somehow makes a case for why my government’s needs it, my mind wanders to the past, where serious people wrote for newspapers.”
“Washington Post editorial board, I am embarrassed for you.”
“Hey, Jeff[Bezos]. We see you. How do Trump’s boots taste?”
“DEAR(?} WP EDITORIAL BOARD: According to your editorial, if Trump wants to tear down the White House and replace it with a replica of Mar a Lago, he could proceed without any safeguards. It’s not about whether a larger ballroom is needed but whether there are any controls. According to your editorial, if Trump doesn’t like the style of the Washington Monument, the Capitol building or the Smithsonian buildings, he could redesign them as he likes.“
“Sorry, it’s not his house. What else needs to be said?”
“Wapo won’t let me post what I’d really like to say here so it’s adios, arrivederci, bye-bye WaPo.”
“So how much money is Bezos contributing to the Golden Calf to build this thing? It will dwarf the original White House, and if Trump says it will be “beautiful,” we know what it will look like — he’s already turned the Oval Office into a pre-revolution French whore-house. How many times in a year will any sane president need a ballroom for 1000 people? Why not just built a football stadium on the lawn?”
“I guess Jeff Bezos is looking for an invite to the dance floor.”
“The Billionaires have spoken through this EB opinion. Why does anyone who has obscene levels of money have to wade through regulations or be denied a modern estate in an historic neighborhood? We billionaires shouldn’t have to wait for anything or ask anyone’s permission. We’re rich. That means we’re smarter than everyone else in the room. You with less than us? Your opinion and your rights don’t matter. We, the richest of the rich, have spoken.”
This situation is a) unprecedented b) raises ethics issues that a typical first year law student or a bright 16-year-old could figure out c) is easily resolved, though the solution would be messy to execute and d) is being misrepresented by the news media because of course it is. I have been stalling, I admit, exploring it here because I am sick to death of Trump related controversies, but I just discussed it 45 minutes ago in an ethics seminar, so I can’t avoid the story any longer.
The Facts: Donald Trump, then a lowly private citizen (but ex-President) submitted a claim, lodged in late 2023, seeking damages for alleged violations of his rights by the F.B.I. and the special counsel tricked -up Russian election tampering investigation. In the summer of 2024, his lawyers filed a second complaint accusing the F.B.I. of violating Trump’s privacy when it raided Mar-a-Lagoin 2022 for to search for classified documents. That claim also accused the Biden Justice Department of malicious prosecution (Gee, ya think?).
Naturally, the Biden Justice Department (which also had a conflict of interest, as it was unlikely to relish the prospect of admitting wrongdoing during the Presidential campaign, did nothing, leaving the matter to be resolved after the election. But Trump won, and many of his lawyers are now officials in the Justice Department. They have, essentially switched sides. Even the President, not known for his sensitivity to ethical matters, realizes the problem. “I have a lawsuit that was doing very well, and when I became president, I said, I’m sort of suing myself,” Trump has said, adding: “It sort of looks bad, I’m suing myself, right? So I don’t know. But that was a lawsuit that was very strong, very powerful.”
Ethics Alarms 