politics

Some Things On My Mind

Dave Davis Commentary, Policy, Uncategorized , , , ,

Catching up on some things I’ve commented on in the past. Remember when Donald Trump said he would end the Ukraine War in 24 hours? I made some suggestions on how he might accomplish this goal. Mainly, it consisted of ways to bring the pain of War to Russia—longer-range weapons to shoot back. As usual, the President ignores my advice. He still tells Ukraine not to hit key cities in Russia. Over half a year into his term, and the War rages on worse than ever.

After several pauses in aid to Ukraine, Trump has concluded that Putin is jerking him around. A former KGB officer can’t be trusted, who knew? Now he’s arranged to ship more arms to the embattled nation that our NATO allies will pay for. To many, this suggests a shift in Trump’s stance on the War.

I’m skeptical. The Washington Post’s David Ignatius, who in the past had good sources, says the new aid includes longer-range weapons and lifts range restrictions on some they already have. Still, unless these weapons hit the political centers of Moscow and St. Petersburg, it won’t matter that much. Till the people of these cities face the same terror that the citizens of Kyiv experience now, Putin has no incentive to change. Yet, Trump says Ukraine shouldn’t hit Moscow.

The President also threatened tough action on the sanctions-tariff front but gave Putin 50 days’ notice before any implementation. After more than six months, why so much time? Is it to head off the Senate from passing the Graham-Blumenthal sanctions bill? The Senate should pass the bill now with its significant bipartisan majority to send a message to both Putin and Trump.

Continue reading →

A Tale Of Two Books

Dave Davis Commentary, Policy, Uncategorized , , , ,

Elon Musk says our two major parties have turned him off; he’s starting the “American Party.” Musk isn’t the only person uncomfortable with the direction offered by the two parties. The Democrats seem to cling to small minority positions, the majority abhors, such as biological males in women’s sports, and open borders. A Republican president playing footsy with organized labor and imposing industrial policy through tariffs. These used to be Democratic policies.

It’s not surprising that long-term adherents to either party are dismayed. Recently, I began to understand what was going on, thanks to two books., “Abundance,” by Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson, and “The New Conservatives,” edited by Oren Cass. In a post last April, I noted, “Abundance” is weak tea, heavy on lamentations about how nothing ever gets built or finished. We’ve all seen this in action, or more realistically, inaction. What I found lacking is solutions.

The authors decry California’s high-speed rail boondoggle, but fail to mention that Florida already connects major cities with its non-government high-speed rail. It’s not profitable, but it’s running and rapidly growing. Completed green power projects are more abundant in red states. Houston has affordable housing, California doesn’t.

While the U.S. as a whole suffers from excessive regulation, some individuals have found ways to accomplish their goals. Instead of merely pointing out the overregulation, the authors needed to demonstrate how to mitigate the problem, providing examples of success, even if they’re in Red States.

I was surprised to read E.J. Dionne’s critique of the book in The Washington Post. Long featured on the left of the center media, such as MSNBC, he’s a longtime window into the progressive intelligentsia’s thinking. In his words, this mild book” has “the potential to divide the party.” What, a book that ends in the aspiration for “a liberalism that builds.” What a shocking idea.

Continue reading →

Demand Answers Now

Dave Davis Commentary, Policy, Uncategorized , , , ,

The Russian summer offensive in Ukraine is in full swing. Heavy attacks along the front lines join heavy drone and missile attacks pounding that valiant nation. It stands to reason that the US and its NATO allies are rushing all the help they can. On Monday, we were surprised to find this isn’t the case. The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported that the US is not only not increasing its support, but is also holding up already approved armaments, some of which are already in Poland.

With all the attention focused on the President’s “Big Beautiful Bill,” this situation is being overlooked. It shouldn’t be. Russian control of Ukraine brings it right up to NATO’s borders. Unless we withdraw from the organization, a Russian attack on a NATO nation will directly involve us. Why would anybody want that? Right now, we only have to provide material support to fend off Russian aggression. An attack on a NATO nation means Americans are in harm’s way. Whatever we’ve spent supporting Ukraine is cheap compared to direct conflict.

This action is the second time the Trump administration has halted arms to Ukraine. Last March, we halted shipments while the Russians were pounding Ukraine, including civilians, to pressure that nation to agree to a ceasefire. They agreed and are still open to the idea.

Russia has agreed to nothing except some prisoner exchanges. Yet the administration has refrained from exerting any real pressure on Putin. Why are we putting more pressure on Ukraine in the middle of a battle, when they’re not the holdup?

Elbridge Colby, the Defense Department undersecretary for policy, appears to be the point person on the arms pause. The excuse given is low stockpiles. What an odd reason. The wars in Ukraine and the Middle East didn’t start yesterday; they’ve been going on for a long time. If we hadn’t ramped up production, it would be our mistake—Produce more rather than taking the bullets out of our friends’ guns. Some are questioning whether the stockpiles are, in fact, low.

Continue reading →

Minority Positions Won’t Win

Dave Davis Commentary, Policy, The Middle East, Uncategorized , , , ,

We finally bombed Iran’s nuclear facilities. Without opposition, the Israelis and then the U.S. hit the major sites. At this point, we don’t know the extent of the damage. An earlier leaked assessment said it might have only set the program back for a few months, while others have said it had done such damage that Iran will need years to get back on track. Without people on the ground, a definitive answer is impossible, but if and when Israel goes in again, it will tell us what the nation at existential risk has determined.

A decade ago, I proposed bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities. If they revive the program, we should strike back. Living in a real version of the Myth of Sisyphus, the Mullahs would eventually tire of pushing the boulder up the mountain, only to start again. So long as Israel controls the skies over Iran, follow-up attacks will take place as needed. It was a good plan then, and it remains so now.

Stopping religious fanatics from possessing weapons of mass destruction removes a grave threat not only to Israel but also from Iran’s long-range missile development to everyone else on Earth. If we denied North Korea and Pakistan nuclear weapons, we’d all sleep better. Iran is much scarier—every day, it’s death to America and death to Israel, and they mean it.

One might think we’d have a national sigh of relief, knowing Iran isn’t about to have nuclear warheads topping Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) aimed at us, but some aren’t cheering. Some Democratic leaders alluded to the leaked study.

The information is preliminary and labeled as having low confidence. Yet, the left-leaning legacy media pounced on it and spread it far and wide. Instead of lauding our military for its work, publicizing a possible Trump failure took precedence. Democratic politicians joined in.

This response seems to reinforce the perception of an anti-Israel bias by the left in its conflict with Iran. Support for pro-Hamas, an Iranian ally, and protesters who harassed Jews by the progressive wing of the Democratic Party indicates the left is anti-Semitic.

Continue reading →

Challenging Bad Info

Dave Davis Commentary, Policy, Uncategorized , , , ,

When you think you can move on from a personal crusade against faulty workplaces, such as the media, academia, and the sciences, an article appears in a prominent publication that is misleading at best or presents poor work in support of a particular point of view—Richard Fryer’s “The Economics of Slavery, an op-ed in the Wall Sreet Journal June 18th, in anticipation of the Juneteenth Holiday the next day. I join the masses of humanity in celebrating the end of chattel servitude anywhere in the world. My upset isn’t with the holiday but rather with someone using it as an opportunity to mislead.

My criticism is similar to what I wrote when I first read “The 1619 Project.” Both are tracts that consist of desired conclusions based on questionable data and straw men.

In Roland Fryer’s case, he claims to refute the idea that slavery was unprofitable. He mentions the “Woodson Center’s “1776 Unites.” However, the center notes Adam Smith’s idea that slavery was inefficient in comparison to his free trade principles. The fact that slavery exists nowhere capitalism is dominant is proof that Smith is correct. However, that has nothing to do with the rewards that owners of human chattels have received through the ages. Smith never said that British Caribbean island sugar plantation owners didn’t benefit. Home weaving was “profitable” for centuries, but hardly exists today because it’s uncompetitive in today’s mass market. Apples and oranges.

Has any of the millions of people who read or saw the movie “Gone With The Wind” concluded that Tara was unprofitable? Could an institution dating back to the Sumerians and practiced across the world in some form for thousands of years last if it was “unprofitable.?’

The author then supports his attack on this straw man with evidence he presents as well-founded scholarly work by Robert Fogel and Stanley Engerman; however, their work is highly contentious regarding both facts and methods. What is the shock in finding that plantations keep production data? Similarly, Roman and Greek slave-owning large landowners did the same. Hammurapi’s Babylon had cuneiform tally clay tablets. What would be enlightening would be comparisons of methods.

Continue reading →