Body Cameras

With Eric Garner, Obama’s body camera argument just took a big hit – The Washington Post.

That was evident before this case, with the Albuquerque Police shooting homeless camper James Boyd on camera **WARNING** DISTURBING CONTENT.

…none of the Albuquerque officers in the more than 40 police shootings since 2010 has faced charges. And it’s still unclear if the officers in the high-profile March shooting of homeless camper James Boyd will face indictments.

—Russell Contreras Officer indictments quite uncommon, The Durango Herald, 2014-11-27


Lena Dunham Plays the Fool, Once Again

According to feminist icon Lena Dunham, yet another common expression is actually really a super-sexist one: ‘too much information,’ or ‘TMI.’

In fact, Dunham said she finds the expression so offensive that it’s her ‘least favorite phrase.’

—Katherine Timpf, NRO: Lena Dunham: The Expression ‘TMI’ Is Sexist

Lena Dunham’s public statements, writing, and scarcity of cloth on screen are TMI. How this child ever reached the point of being taken seriously defies all reason.

I’ve heard the phrases “TMI” and “oversharing” plenty of times, applied to both men and women. If she associates with people who use it primarily to criticize women, then she should associate with better people. Rather, I suspect she has a nasty habit of over-sharing too much information and lacks the mental ability to accept that she has acted inappropriately. It can’t be anything she did wrong. It must be people who react negatively towards her inappropriate behavior. Considering the nature of her upbringing by ultra-rich exhibitionist artists, I’d say she was assembled by these people, who then pulled the pin on her and tossed her out into the world.

Dunham’s frequent use of the feminist/SJW card, asserting that certain words “offend” her, simply takes the tactic of turning words into thoughtcrimes to its logical conclusion. I doubt she’s truly offended, but she’s learned to play that card to control others.

Leftists Are Not Libertarian

In response to remarks on “privilege” by self-described “left libertarians”, Jeff Peterson, II and Matt Tanous dissect the nonsense underlying the “check your privilege” attitude thrown down by these people. The basic definition is, itself, a problem:

…how is it that privilege is the problem? I thought the problem was that some people are oppressed, not that some people aren’t.
—Jeff Peterson II and Matt Tanous, Something Something “Privilege”. | We the Individuals, taken out of the longer essay “Left-Libertarianism, A Love Story” and enhanced.

Look close enough and you’ll find envy underlying any “leftist” perspective—and I despise the left-right paradigm as hopelessly flawed on many levels. Whether it’s the lexicon of the Marxist or the newer phrases like “privilege”, “micro-agressions”, and the like, it’s about envy. And, it’s about rigging the analysis of how to draw the lines between oppressor and oppressed to tilt everything towards the result they want.

This quickly devolves into the “Oppression Olympics” with a whole bunch of “intersectional” activists fighting over who is most oppressed.

Engaging these people in arguments leads to the inevitable accusation that you’re blinded by your own privilege to see evidence of your oppression, for which they employ a wonderful term from Wendy McElroy, “kafkatrapping”, which

[d]escribes a logical fallacy that is popular within gender feminism, racial politics and other ideologies of victimhood. It occurs when you are accused of a thought crime such as sexism, racism or homophobia. You respond with an honest denial, which is then used as further confirmation of your guilt. You are now trapped in a circular and unfalsifiable argument; no one who is accused can be innocent because the structure of kafkatrapping precludes that possibility.

Finally, they hit on a core problem of the “left libertarian” argument:

The great presumption that some sort of belief in a particular ideal social organization is somehow “libertarian” is absurd. And that’s the root of the issue we have here.

I view those who dub themselves “left-libertarian” as charlatans or fools. Using some libertarian phrases is just a sham so that the likes of Noam Chomsky can deny association with big state collectivism and sucker the naïve away from actual individualist sources.

Nobody who understands the concepts and who has a basic knowledge of history would ever mix “left” with individualism. On the question of do you own your life?, the “leftist” will never give an unqualified “yes” and the individualist, by definition, must do so. The “left libertarians” simply play with words in an attempt to avoid being cornered on that basic question, when all that is necessary is to understand what “left” means, again, considering how the one-dimensional metric is inherently flawed and perverse to describe political ideas.

Libertarians on the Wilson and Brown Case

As libertarians, we claim to have a solution. We claim to know a better way. We claim to be the ones striking at the root of the tree of evil instead of hacking at branches. So why are so many of us responding as a community as though the most important question were whether Wilson was justified in shooting Brown?
—E. Lee MacFall, Libertarians are Missing the Point on the Darren Wilson Case | Towards a Better Way

The assertion of having a solution or “better way” runs counter to individualism. Yes, I believe that most people would fare best in a civilization in which people refrain from aggressive behavior, in which laissez faire free market economics precludes using government force—which is necessarily aggressive—to interfere in the market, even under the premise of protecting people (which is most often a lie). But to insist that everyone else follow such a blueprint and trust to my judgement for their own lives, would be anti-individualist.

Peppered throughout MacFall’s article are a number of collectivist phrases, like, “…we claim…,” and, “…us responding as a community….” In that respect, he misses a core value of libertarianism.

And finally, if the question of justified use of force is not the most important question, then it isn’t about the shooting. Then the shooting becomes nothing but a springboard for airing other grievances. And, to start from a presumption that Wilson murdered Brown, even though evidence disproves most of the claims in support of that, is to start with a lie. What sort of moral conclusion can anyone draw from a lie?