The Roll of Central Banks

In his piece about Brexit and the UK’s second quarter contraction, Paul Hannon wondered about the role of central banks generally in keep[ing] the global economy growing if trade disputes escalate. Can they even do so, he asked.

I say the question is a non sequitur. It’s not up to central banks to keep the global economy growing. It’s each central bank’s job to maintain stable prices in its respective nation. Central banks certainly can coordinate their actions with each other, but that can be done legitimately only with each bank’s own national interests in mind, not those of any other nation or collection of them.

If central banks stick to that simple (and not so simple) task, their respective nations’ economies will have a better chance of staying healthy and growing, and that will aggregate to a healthy and growing “global” economy.

Against that, trade disputes are relatively minor bumps.  Economic wars, such as the one the PRC has been waging against the US and against the West generally for decades, are much more serious threats to the global economy and to individual national economies, but that doesn’t alter in the slightest the responsibility of national central banks.

White Supremacy

Senator and Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren (D, MA) and Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Robert Francis O’Rourke say President Donald Trump is a white supremacist. Since this comes on the heels of Progressive-Democrat Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D, NY) inviting “white supremacists” to come back, assuring them they’d be welcome, some comments on white supremacy are in order.

I’ll leave aside Warren’s shame of her own whiteness apparently being so great she masqueraded herself as Cherokee for years (while, just incidentally, profiting off that claim in her law and teaching career).

The Democratic Party is the party of slavery, and it opposed slavery’s abolition to the point of Civil War.

The Democratic Party was the party of no mixed-marriages—on pain of death—for centuries.

The Democratic Party has been the party of lynchings—a black man seeing a white woman or a black boy looking at one the wrong way was just one of many excuses Democrats used for stringing up black men and boys.

The Democratic Party has been the party of the KKK.

The Democratic Party has been the party of Jim Crow and of granting only secondary rights to blacks.

The Democratic Party has been the party of separate-but-equal accesses to everything from drinking fountains to bathrooms to bus seats to lunch counters.

It was the white supremacist and Democrat President Woodrow Wilson who re-segregated the Federal government after the Republicans had, however fitfully, integrated it in the years between the Civil War and Wilson’s accession to power.

That might seem like ancient history, but these wonders have continued their bigotry, if more perniciously, more insidiously:

The Democratic Party’s white supremacist George Wallace forced the Federal government to intervene to integrate his State’s schools.  The Progressive-Democratic Party’s Attorney General Eric Holder—black man that he is—sued Louisiana over its voucher school program, which facilitated black children’s escape from failing public schools to gain entry into better-performing voucher schools.  He kept those children trapped in those failing public schools because their departure would have unbalanced those schools.

The Progressive-Democratic Party is the party of gun control, which its direct ancestor, that Democratic Party, invented for the purpose of denying access to guns by blacks.

The Progressive-Democratic Party is the party that continues enthusiastically to push race- and gender-based affirmative action, also an invention of its predecessor. The Progressive-Democratic Party continues enthusiastically to push the associated general soft bigotry of low expectations.

The Progressive-Democratic Party is the party of 21st century segregation of identity politics.

Warren, O’Rourke (he of Irish extraction while campaigning on an Hispanic nickname), and Ocasio-Cortez would profit from some serious, objective introspection.

The nation will profit from sweeping Progressive-Democrats from government in 2020.

The Dangerous Mr Castro

Congressman Joaquin Castro (D, TX) still pretends he did nothing wrong in telling the world in general and us Americans in particular how to locate 44 of us when he doxed those 44 and called them racists because their politics were not his.  Castro still insists they deserved to be called out; all he was trying to do was identify despicable persons whose “contributions are fueling a campaign of hate.”

Here is a telephone message one of Castro’s minions, who answered his call to arms, left on the phone of one of those whose location information he so carefully, maliciously exposed. Play the recording, ugly as it is, but be careful where you play it; the recording does not contain gentle language.

https://twitter.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/1159845704614985728?s=20

But the danger is broader. Despicable and dangerous to us Americans as Castro’s doxing has been, this is typical of the Progressive-Democratic Party of which he is a part.

Unintended consequence? No, this is one of their deliberately sought-after consequences.  After all, if rhetoric is responsible for El Paso, as the Progressive-Democratic Party and its Presidential candidates insist so vociferously, so maliciously, so is Castro’s rhetoric—in spades.  And his rhetoric is directed.

Castro didn’t merely incite a general, violent attitude.  Castro, with his doxing, said, “here are 44 Americans of whom I disapprove.  Here is a person of whom I disapprove.  Here’s where you can find them, here’s where they work and for whom they work.  Names and addresses.  Go get them.”

And the Progressive-Democratic Party and its candidates whole-heartedly, loudly approve.  This is the real campaign of hate; this is the Left’s malevolence given concrete action.

Decisions

Hong Kong’s 34,000 policemen and the force as a whole are approaching a decision point—or perhaps, the People’s Republic of China’s President Xi Jinping is about to force a decision on them.

With Hong Kong’s summer of unrest escalating, its police are in a bind. The local population increasingly accuses them of inflaming protester rage by using excessive force, while mainland Chinese authorities are exhorting them to get tougher to resolve the crisis.

Violence? With the Hong Kong police, it’s becoming fairly routine to use tear gas and truncheons. Protestor-originated violence has remained isolated and rare.

Raising the stakes further are ominous hints that China could deploy its military to restore order if officials in Beijing conclude local authorities can’t handle a crisis….

Hence the approaching decision.  Those 34,000 police will have to make a decision when the 6,000 PLA soldiers garrisoned in HK make their move. On whose side are they?

one officer…said he is trying to tune out the politics. “It’s not my job to think too much about it. It’s useless what I think,” said the officer.

He may have no interest in politics, but politics has an interest in him.  And he remains a citizen of Hong Kong, for all that he’s also a cop.

In the end, it appears the police have chosen their side. This just yesterday:

In a shift of tactics, police in riot gear charged groups in several districts: In one subway station, they used batons to beat protesters who were running away and pinned several to the ground; in another, snatch squads grabbed protesters from the streets; barrages of tear gas and rubber bullets were fired in another clash outside a police station.

Red Flag Gun Laws

In which I disagree with Ben Shapiro and others who support red flag gun laws.  There are a number of reasons for my disagreement; here are some, in no particular order. They are, each of them individually, must less collectively, deal breakers.

There’s considerable concern—legitimately so—about going through due process to protect the rights of the individual being “accused” of mental instability or of being dangerous otherwise to folks with whom he might come in contact (home, shopping mall,…). If the man truly is that dangerous, though, the court process cannot act quickly enough to mitigate the situation in the real time during which the danger supposedly exists.

There’s the question of defining “mentally unstable” or of defining other parameters of actionable danger the man allegedly represents.  Psychiatric problems have a myriad ways of manifesting, each unique to the man and to the environment in which he exists.  A stroll through the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5 is the current edition) illustrates the problem: this is not something a layman can easily understand or apply—and it’s a layman, a cop initially and a judge finally, who will make the decision, for all the “expert witnesses” that will be brought by the conflicting parties to the case).  Even assuming precise enough definitions and diagnoses, both assessments and treatments are concomitantly varied, and they’re slow to diagnose and slow to bring effect. The slowness to identify also prevents timely enough action to mitigate the situation in the real time during which the danger allegedly exists.

There’s the question of who makes the determination of the mental/criminal danger and of what the action should be.  We’ve seen the outcome of government definitions (regardless of any DSM, it’s Government that writes the laws and the legal definitions)—the Gulag of Soviet Russia, the “reeducation” camps of the People’s Republic of China’s Mao Tse-tung and Xi Jinping.  Pol Pot and Saddam Hussein didn’t bother with such niceties; those two just had their undesirables executed.

Each of those, too, constitute prior restraint—acting to limit the ability of a man to act before he acts.  Such prior restraint is the stuff of tyranny. Yet we’re already seeing a ravening thirst on the part of our Progressive-Democrats to engage in prior restraint: those who disagree with them are variously racist, anti-immigration, excessively religious, and on and on.

There is no consideration of the rights of other members of the “dangerous” man’s household.  Their Second Amendment rights would be grievously abused were weapons removed from that man’s household.

That rights abuse becomes dangerous, potentially lethally so, in the case of domestic abuse.  The man’s—the household’s, the abused spouse’s, the child’s—access to weapons is blocked, but the abusive man is still in the house, now with a spouse and one or more children who’ve been denied any means of defense.  And he’s angry from the accusation and the resulting restriction.

Related to this are divorce and child custody cases.  Both of these classes of case are rife with (which is not to say universally so) one or both parties vilifying the other in order to gain advantage in the divorce or child custody.  This is an environment that begs for the abuse of false, or even just emotionally-driven erroneous, accusations of a danger necessitating taking away the weapons.

There’s the false positive: the man is accused and then found not to be the unstable or otherwise dangerous individual originally believed. How does he get his destroyed reputation back?  The blowback for a false accusation of which Shapiro spoke cannot restore the destroyed reputation.  The blowback can only get a sum of money—which has little value to a man whose reputation has been shredded.

There is, also, the false negative: the man is incorrectly found not to be the unstable or otherwise dangerous. Now he’s not only still dangerous, but he’s been warned that he’s being watched.  And perhaps seeking vengeance for the accusation, or his potential actions made even more lethal, and more likely.

All of this, too, results in targeting the tool; the man who might use the tool is considered only secondarily, if at all.

Then there’s the constitutionality of the matter.  Here’s the Second Amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

There’s nothing in there—not a syllable—remotely resembling a but for.  There is no phrasing suggesting “except when Government, or a Government-appointed body, decides a man might be dangerous some time in the future.”  The right to keep and bear Arms[] shall not be infringed.  Full stop.

Finally, there’s the matter of limiting principles.  Red flag laws—gun control laws in general—do not carry with them any articulation of a limiting principle that says the law or the evolution of the law goes thus far and no farther.  There is no articulation of a natural limit that blocks further restriction even were the relevant authority wishing to go farther.  The law will just continue to have its definitions and restrictions broadened and tightened in accordance with the wishes—well-intentioned or other—of succeeding administrations.

Shapiro said in his The Ben Shapiro Show, as cited by Fox News, that

partisan anger and political abuse of proposed red-flag gun laws could lead to a power grab by the government if statutes and regulations aren’t instituted properly.

Indeed. And as just laid out, those statutes and regulations cannot be instituted properly. It’s an impossible task.

Shapiro went on:

This is why I say that when the left targets everybody on the right as a potential shooter or a supporter of a shooter, they’re undermining the ability to actually pass laws that could actually do something about this stuff. So, normally we should all be able to agree on a red-flag law.

Again, no.  We are not able to agree on a red-flag law. Not ever.  But not because the Left will always be with us, trying to take our guns away from us on any excuse at all, or because the Right will always be with us saying don’t touch our guns in any way whatsoever.

Rather because safeguards do not, cannot, exist. To paraphrase James Madison, hopefully not too badly,

If men were angels, no Arms would be necessary.

We’re not angels.  We’re men, individual citizens, and operators of government.  Imperfect men. The Second Amendment is our only protection.  The limiting principle there is clear: shall not be infringed, with no caveats or exceptions.