Pravda US

A question that I found annoying in the Presidential Debate was asked to Trump: Do you support Russia hacking emails?

Of course, when wikileaks works for Democrats, it’s okay. When they’re against, let’s moralize on whether it’s right or not.

My answer would be:

We should all find it amazing that we have to rely on Russia to report the truth about what goes on here in the U.S. Uncovering the truth used to be your job, but the American people can’t count on you anymore.

You’ve become apparatchiks for your political party. You sweep under the rug some pretty dastardly stuff to advance your agenda using your moral code of letting the ends justify the means, even when the means are horrifying.

History Lesson: 2000 Election

The big news headline this morning from the debate…Trump says he’ll refuse the election results if he doesn’t win! That has never happened in this country! That is absolutely shocking! 

Reporters and Democrat operatives are foaming at the mouth trying to get us to believe this is nuts and unprecedented.

First, I believe he just said that he can’t say now. He did not say he would refuse it. The misreporting of his statements shocks me.

Second, never happened before in this country? It was just 16 years ago when Al Gore’s campaign refused to accept the election results, forced a recount in Florida and pushed it all the way until the Supreme Court to call it off. Read about it here.


Supreme Court Question in the Presidential Debate

I made it through the first question before I tuned on something else.

Question: Do you think the Supreme Court should interpret the Constitution like the Founders intended or is it a living document left to be interpreted by the Supreme Court to reflect the day and age?

Clinton: Blah blah blah…The Supreme Court should represent the people.

This should disqualify her from being President because it shows she does not understand the separation of powers or why the Founders wanted to separate the powers.

If the Supreme Court is supposed to interpret the Constitution for the day and age, that gives them the power to legislate, which is vested in the Legislative branch. And, since presidents appoint justices, guess who then gets the power to legislate? Yes, the President.

Trump: Blah blah blah…The Supreme Court should interpret the Constitution as the Founders intended because that’s very important.

At least he got something almost right.

I would have said, the Supreme Court’s job is to decide whether something agrees or disagrees with the Constitution. That’s one source of the rule of law that has helped this country thrive.

The Constitution IS a living document.

BUT, it doesn’t live through arbitrary views of the Supreme Court Justices, it lives through Article V: The Amendment Process. You should all read it, America, because we don’t seem to know about it.

If we want to change the Constitution to reflect the day and age, we can. In fact, it has been changed twenty-two times in the country’s history, with the latest change coming in 1951 to limit the number of terms a President can serve.

So, yes, the Supreme Court should do its job and interpret the Constitution as intended.

And, just one point of technicality. You asked if they should interpret as the Founders intended. That’s a loaded question, because the Founders did not write all of the Amendments, so they did not write the whole Constitution.

The Supreme Court’s job is to interpret the Constitution as all of its writers intended.

If “we” don’t like something that’s in the Constitution, then “we” should use Article V to change it it, like our predecessors did twenty-two times before.

Good Sowell Series

Here’s a good, 3-part series of columns from Thomas Sowell:

In it, he discusses several topics where the Left thinks it is doing good, but they wind up hurting the very people they think they are helping.

He also discusses their unwillingness to consider the evidence of this. So they keep going with their policies because they sound good and keep hurting the people they say they want to help.

Thomas Sowell’s writings were key in getting me to question my support for leftist policies when I was younger.

But, I was also willing to to consider the evidence because my motivation was to actually do good for the people I wanted to help, not just say that I was and not just gain favor with others who think they are.


Why Power Corrupts

Here’s an interesting podcast from Harvard Business Review with Dan Keltner, Power Corrupts, But It Doesn’t Have To.

In it, he discusses ways in which power corrupts. A question I think is even more interesting is why power corrupts. He touches on it a little, but not much. Maybe his book goes deeper.

I wrote about why I think power corrupts in 2010.



In this Planet Money podcast, they explore why milk is usually in the back of the store. The two prevailing theories are:

  1. Since it’s a high volume item, putting it in the back gets more shoppers to walk through the entire store so they buy more.
  2. Because it’s easier for the store to keep the milk cold from the truck to the cooler.

Michael Pollan represented #1 and Russ Roberts #2.

There’s a couple reasons I enjoyed this podcast beyond the topic being interesting.

First, Russ Roberts, host of his own podcast (commonly referenced on this blog) EconTalk, is interested in finding the truth, rather than just being right. This was evident in that there were a couple of times in the pod when he helped the other side make their argument. I think that is a rare and refreshing quality in world that seems more full of people who are more interested in being right.

Second, I think Russ did a great job of explaining how competition keeps businesses honest.

His argument against #1 is competition. It’s kept in the back because it’s cheaper and shoppers prefer cheaper milk over more convenient milk, otherwise competition — which is high among grocers — would have discovered the preference.

It’s worth a listen.