43 and 50 made me think of a suggestion I saw somewhere (Mark Levin?) that we add a "House of Repeal" whose sole purpose is to repeal existing laws that we don't need or shouldn't exist. Similar to a new rule that for every new law passed, 2 existing laws must be repealed.
Increasing the accuracy of #5 - my addition: 5) Women already get equal work for equal pay. To the extent that there’s a difference between what men and women make, it’s a result of women quitting work to stay home with kids THEN RETURNING TO THE JOB MARKET YEARS LATER, or working fewer hours than men, or taking less dangerous, more pleasant jobs.
Dear author, I liked your article, and said so. The platform has a discussion section, so I contributed politely articulated opinions on 2 complex topics out of 50, where I had some objections. I even badmouthed the Left, hoping that you conservatives would love me. Yet, when another contributor called me a liar, you liked his contribution. For $70/year, this dose of conservatism doesn't seems like a great value.
Great list. I think much of it would be brought back into proper balance if we repealed the 16th and 17th Amendments. Those two amendments did the most to reshape the character of the government by removing the state at the Federal level. Tax state legislatures 2/3 on population, and 1/3 by state accessible land (excluding national parks, mountains, swamps, deserts, blm land), and tax the state legislatures for the federal budget. Watch politician fight politician for money. It's a better show than UFC.
I agree 100% with all the above statements, EXCEPT #5. IMHO, women are NOT YET in all cases getting "equal pay for equal work". There is still some work to be done in this area! However, we CAN say that "Returning to the job market", women--just like men who may later return to the job market, ought to get equal pay for the work for which they are at that time qualified!!! "Working fewer hours" women ought to get paid exactly as men are paid who work fewer hours. Women who take "less dangerous or more pleasant jobs" ought to get paid exactly as men are paid for less dangerous or more pleasant jobs." .....Then what shall we say about the totally ignored and discounted work that [mostly] women do: staying home with the kids??? When will we as a society pay these women AND men what that most important of all work deserves???
I take issue with #25, not because I disagree with the sentiment but because speaking of "Critical Race Theory" as it is in this context is going to bring the howling of the leftist semantics police. Because these people would rather argue over semantics than admit the teaching is happening, we need to say, "the methods which are produced by the ideas proposed by CRT are being taught."
We should make/have no law to protect one from oneself. Progress is made by those who are willing to take risks and suffer the consequences, good or bad. Poor example: If a motorcyclist wants to ride without a helmet, that should be his privilege as long as he is willing to accept the consequences.
Regarding #44 on John's list (also posted below as a reply to Bill) from RealClearPolicy.com:
"In Arizona 2022, from RealClearPolicy.com: "Last week, Governor Doug Ducey signed an executive order renewing a now seven-year-old moratorium on rulemaking from state regulatory agencies. The order requires governor approval before agencies may move forward with regulatory changes, and agencies must recommend three regulations for repeal — from the stack of existing outdated, obsolete, and confusing rules — for each new one added to the rulemaking pile." Put into effect for the federal government.
51. When somebody lies, we distance from him (e.g. Trump about election results)
52. When somebody takes advantage of poorly written laws to subvert democratic process, we distance from him (e.g. Trump and election confirmation process in Congress). Democracy works only for people of good will. It is impossible to write such a law that would resist subversion by ill-meaning people.
"Worst case scenario, they're only hurting themselves."
And a very bad scenario, the unvaccinated are flooding the hospitals and ICUs. Totally unnecessarily, and easily preventable by a rather minor inconvenience - getting the vaccine. Our grandfathers were fighting wars in frozen Europe, but we we would shout and scream and argue against getting a tiny prick and having a mild one day reaction. Ridiculous. Not conservative. Girly. Man up.
Re: 29. The case that global warming is happening...
Science is there, and it was mostly correct in its predictions - global warming is happening , and is caused by man. It doesn't matter how poorly it is interpreted and processed by the Left, like e.g. their long-term and KGB-sponsored resistance to cheaper and abundant nuclear energy. Considering the potential damage, it makes sense to invest a certain portion of our GDP in preventing the worst case scenarios. This is the same approach as a home insurance policy. You invest little bit to manage a rare bad outcome.
Poor studies, hysteria, major lifestyle changes, massive investments indeed do not make sense.
Conservatives have a duty to be smart, so we can resist crazy ideas by the Left with good and impenetrable arguments. Pretending that global warming is not real is not smart.
43 and 50 made me think of a suggestion I saw somewhere (Mark Levin?) that we add a "House of Repeal" whose sole purpose is to repeal existing laws that we don't need or shouldn't exist. Similar to a new rule that for every new law passed, 2 existing laws must be repealed.
Increasing the accuracy of #5 - my addition: 5) Women already get equal work for equal pay. To the extent that there’s a difference between what men and women make, it’s a result of women quitting work to stay home with kids THEN RETURNING TO THE JOB MARKET YEARS LATER, or working fewer hours than men, or taking less dangerous, more pleasant jobs.
Great list, well done John.
Dear author, I liked your article, and said so. The platform has a discussion section, so I contributed politely articulated opinions on 2 complex topics out of 50, where I had some objections. I even badmouthed the Left, hoping that you conservatives would love me. Yet, when another contributor called me a liar, you liked his contribution. For $70/year, this dose of conservatism doesn't seems like a great value.
Great list. I think much of it would be brought back into proper balance if we repealed the 16th and 17th Amendments. Those two amendments did the most to reshape the character of the government by removing the state at the Federal level. Tax state legislatures 2/3 on population, and 1/3 by state accessible land (excluding national parks, mountains, swamps, deserts, blm land), and tax the state legislatures for the federal budget. Watch politician fight politician for money. It's a better show than UFC.
I agree 100% with all the above statements, EXCEPT #5. IMHO, women are NOT YET in all cases getting "equal pay for equal work". There is still some work to be done in this area! However, we CAN say that "Returning to the job market", women--just like men who may later return to the job market, ought to get equal pay for the work for which they are at that time qualified!!! "Working fewer hours" women ought to get paid exactly as men are paid who work fewer hours. Women who take "less dangerous or more pleasant jobs" ought to get paid exactly as men are paid for less dangerous or more pleasant jobs." .....Then what shall we say about the totally ignored and discounted work that [mostly] women do: staying home with the kids??? When will we as a society pay these women AND men what that most important of all work deserves???
Get it? Got it? Good! God bless us all! :o)
This is "spot-on". Great
Superlative!
I take issue with #25, not because I disagree with the sentiment but because speaking of "Critical Race Theory" as it is in this context is going to bring the howling of the leftist semantics police. Because these people would rather argue over semantics than admit the teaching is happening, we need to say, "the methods which are produced by the ideas proposed by CRT are being taught."
We should make/have no law to protect one from oneself. Progress is made by those who are willing to take risks and suffer the consequences, good or bad. Poor example: If a motorcyclist wants to ride without a helmet, that should be his privilege as long as he is willing to accept the consequences.
#3-Judeo-Christian morals
Best article I've read in a very long time. Thank you.
Regarding #44 on John's list (also posted below as a reply to Bill) from RealClearPolicy.com:
"In Arizona 2022, from RealClearPolicy.com: "Last week, Governor Doug Ducey signed an executive order renewing a now seven-year-old moratorium on rulemaking from state regulatory agencies. The order requires governor approval before agencies may move forward with regulatory changes, and agencies must recommend three regulations for repeal — from the stack of existing outdated, obsolete, and confusing rules — for each new one added to the rulemaking pile." Put into effect for the federal government.
51. When somebody lies, we distance from him (e.g. Trump about election results)
52. When somebody takes advantage of poorly written laws to subvert democratic process, we distance from him (e.g. Trump and election confirmation process in Congress). Democracy works only for people of good will. It is impossible to write such a law that would resist subversion by ill-meaning people.
Ad 33. Vaccines...
"Worst case scenario, they're only hurting themselves."
And a very bad scenario, the unvaccinated are flooding the hospitals and ICUs. Totally unnecessarily, and easily preventable by a rather minor inconvenience - getting the vaccine. Our grandfathers were fighting wars in frozen Europe, but we we would shout and scream and argue against getting a tiny prick and having a mild one day reaction. Ridiculous. Not conservative. Girly. Man up.
Good list.
Re: 29. The case that global warming is happening...
Science is there, and it was mostly correct in its predictions - global warming is happening , and is caused by man. It doesn't matter how poorly it is interpreted and processed by the Left, like e.g. their long-term and KGB-sponsored resistance to cheaper and abundant nuclear energy. Considering the potential damage, it makes sense to invest a certain portion of our GDP in preventing the worst case scenarios. This is the same approach as a home insurance policy. You invest little bit to manage a rare bad outcome.
Poor studies, hysteria, major lifestyle changes, massive investments indeed do not make sense.
Conservatives have a duty to be smart, so we can resist crazy ideas by the Left with good and impenetrable arguments. Pretending that global warming is not real is not smart.