Meanwhile, Back Where Great Britain Used to Be

…comes this heartwarming story of stupid criminals:

How wrong fuel sunk £1 billion drug deal

The operation to land £1 billion of cocaine was going like clockwork: the catamaran had glided into position in the sea off west Cork and the cargo was being ferried ashore to a remote location, ready for distribution across Britain.

Months of planning suddenly went awry, however, because of the simplest of blunders — somebody put diesel in a petrol engine. The mistake caused an inflatable boat to capsize, tipping dozens of bales of cocaine into the choppy waters and casting one of the drug dealers into the sea.

When the emergency services were alerted, police found 61 suspicious packages floating around the upturned boat in Dunlough Bay, west Cork.

Yesterday four men were convicted for attempting to smuggle what became the largest seizure of cocaine in Britain and Ireland, on board the ironically named Lucky Day.

Pretty humorous, no? Until I got to this part:

Joe Daly, 41, from southeast London, Martin Wanden, 45, of no fixed address, and Perry Wharrie, 48, from Essex, who were carrying out the orders for a criminal syndicate based in Britain and Spain, were jailed for their role in transporting and storing 1 tonne of high-grade cocaine.

Wanden and Wharrie were each sentenced to 30 years and Daly to 25. A fourth man, Gerard Hagan, 24, from Liverpool, who pleaded guilty, will be sentenced later.

Wharrie was jailed for life in 1989 for the murder of an off-duty police officer and released in 2005 on licence.

The sonofabitch murdered a cop, got LIFE IN PRISON for it, and SERVED FIFTEEN YEARS?!?!

WTF? WTFF??

(h/t to Theo Spark)

The Four Boxes

The Four Boxes

The saying goes, we have four boxes with which to defend our liberty: the Soap Box, the Ballot Box, the Jury Box, and the Cartridge Box.

There’s been a recent excrement storm over someone using Box #1 to threaten the use of Box #4. If you follow the threads and especially the comments, there is much sturm und drang over how counterproductive it is to threaten lethal force in a letter-to-the-editor of a local paper over licensing and registration. This then transitions to essentially two positions: One – our right to arms is slowly but surely being won back by people who have been fighting the good fight, within the system, for decades. Thirty-seven “shall-issue” states, the Heller Supreme Court decision, politicians avoiding gun control like it’s the proverbial “third rail” all indicate that our side is winning, and throwing verbal hand-grenades is not helpful to the cause. Two – our right to arms is still being eroded daily, as a right should not require us to petition the State for a license to exercise it, the Heller decision didn’t go far enough, and regardless the government is still persecuting gun owners without penalty, the State has overreached its limited powers, and TEOTWAWKI is rapidly approaching, or worse, it’s already over and we just refuse to take notice of it. The second side also points out that the right to arms isn’t the only right that’s been folded, spindled, mutilated and defecated upon – not by a long shot.

Side one argues that the system works for those who show up. Side two points out that the overwhelming majority of those “showing up” support ever-larger, more intrusive government. Side one counters “then get involved!” Side two ripostes that threatening violence is “getting involved.” Side one argues that violent revolution hardly ever results in an improvement of conditions, and that ours succeeded only because of the extraordinary selflessness of the men who led it.

Side two doesn’t have much of a response to that.

Side one argues that nobody really wants what violent revolution would result in. That trying to work within the system is, by far, preferable to rooftop snipers, IEDs, and the possibility of our own military dropping cluster-bombs on our neighborhoods (or, per Vanderboegh, suicide pilots and fuel-air explosions), just to name a few of the cheerier scenarios. Side two remains mostly mum, but I hear echoes of Patrick Henry.

What this whole thing illustrates for me is, again, that humanity has a strong self-destructive streak. Now that the surface of the earth has been explored, and humans have settled everywhere that they can raise enough food to survive, we no longer have frontiers for the disaffected to go to in order to escape the restraints of societies that they cannot fit into. There’s nowhere left to go. And there aren’t enough of the misfits to alter those societies enough to make them even marginally comfortable. Even worse, the misfits cannot form their own societies – they can’t get along with each other.

I’m not saying that Mike Vanderboegh is one of the misfits. Hell, he didn’t say anything I haven’t thought or written myself. Hell, maybe I’m a misfit, too, just a bit closer to the middle of the bell curve. After all, I have my own bright shining lines.

But I think one thing is certain: There’s tough history coming.

UPDATE: I strongly recommend that you read The Myth of the Clean Revolution.

This too: Thoughts on a revolution

Quote of the Day

Quote of the Day

Please overcome your irrational fear. Please find a range, and learn to shoot. Please try to buy a gun, if your jurisdiction allows, and find out how hard you’ve made it to exercise a fundamental human right, how hard you’ve made it to defend yourself against goblins who have never given two lumpy farts for your laws, your principles, or your feelings.

Please, please, please, learn that it’s OK to be free. – DJMoore, The Nonviolent Lie

RTWT

He’ll Be Out of a Job Shortly

Kim du Toit has been following the news out of Africa ever since he left. Recently he linked to an unusual piece by journalist Kevin Meyers that broke the PC mold and ground it into dust, Africa is giving nothing to anyone — apart from AIDS. In fact, I’m shocked that it made it through those famous layers of editorial oversight and actually saw print pixels. Please do read it.

This afternoon, Kim linked to a follow on – the expected reaction to Mr. Meyers’ bit of heresy.

But instead of more heresy, Mr. Meyers has committed apostasy.

In 2003 in an op-ed about Walter Cronkite coming out of the liberal closet, FOX News host Eric Burns wrote these words:

The majority of young men and women who enter journalism do so not because they want to report the news but because they want to make a difference in society. In other words, they want to report certain kinds of news. They do not want to convey facts or explain processes; they want to shine spotlights on abuse. In some cases they are motivated by idealism; in others, by the hope that some of the light will reflect back on them.

It’s a good piece. Being on FOX he could get away with it. But not, I think, Mr. Meyers. In his piece Writing what I should have written so many years ago, he says:

The people of Ireland remained in ignorance of the reality of Africa because of cowardly journalists like me. When I went to Ethiopia just over 20 years ago, I saw many things I never reported — such as the menacing effect of gangs of young men with Kalashnikovs everywhere, while women did all the work. In the very middle of starvation and death, men spent their time drinking the local hooch in the boonabate shebeens. Alongside the boonabates were shanty-brothels, to which drinkers would casually repair, to briefly relieve themselves in the scarred orifice of some wretched prostitute (whom God preserve and protect). I saw all this and did not report it, nor the anger of the Irish aid workers at the sexual incontinence and fecklessness of Ethiopian men. Why? Because I wanted to write much-acclaimed, tear-jerkingly purple prose about wide-eyed, fly-infested children — not cold, unpopular and even “racist” accusations about African male culpability.

RTWT.

Eric Burns also wrote:

As Cronkite so famously said for so many years, closing his newscasts: “And that’s the way it is.”

But it isn’t. At least, not to the extent that it used to be. For what has happened over the years is that the liberal influence in journalism has become so pervasive that alternatives have developed, and there are more alternatives to liberal bias today, it seems to me, than there have ever been before—more newspapers, more magazines, more talk radio programs, and even an all-news cable network that strenuously avoids a left-leaning emphasis on issues of public concern.

Journalism, in other words, is now attracting, and in greater numbers than ever, those who want to shine a spotlight on a different kind of abuse – the one-sided presentation of news.

In large part those greater numbers are in the alternative media, like bloggers. In a 2004 Jewish World Review piece, Jack Kelly wrote about the decline of newspapers (did you see that the NYT‘s profits are off 82% this quarter?). He said in his piece Newspaper sale$ decline should be blamed on the journos:

Journalists rank near the bottom of the professions in honesty and ethical standards, according to Gallup’s annual survey. Last year, only 21 percent of respondents said newspaper reporters had high or very high ethical standards.

An awful lot of you don’t trust us to get our facts straight, to tell both sides of the story, or to put the news in context. For that, more and more of you are turning to web logs, or “blogs.” There were hardly any blogs five years ago. There are more than four million today. There could be eight million by the next election.

Blogs provided you with information we in the “mainstream” media didn’t want you to have, such as John Kerry’s “Christmas in Cambodia,” and the fact that the documents on which Dan Rather and CBS were relying for a hit piece on President Bush’s National Guard service were forgeries.

Journalists tend not to like bloggers, because they report on errors we make. Dan Rather and former New York Times editor Howell Raines are unemployed chiefly because of the vigilance and tenacity of bloggers. (We journalists rarely turn the spotlights we use on business leaders and government officials on ourselves.)

People who work at journalism full time ought to be able to do a better job of it than people for whom it is a hobby. But that’s not going to happen as long as we “professional” journalists ignore stories we don’t like and try to hide our mistakes. We think of ourselves as “gatekeepers.” But there is not much future in being a gatekeeper when the walls are down.

Mr. Meyer’s admission is, I think, more evidence of this.

Robert Bartley, editor emeritus of The Wall Street Journal once wrote:

The opinion of the press corps tends toward consensus because of an astonishing uniformity of viewpoint. Certain types of people want to become journalists, and they carry certain political and cultural opinions. This self-selection is hardened by peer group pressure. No conspiracy is necessary; journalists quite spontaneously think alike. The problem comes because this group-think is by now divorced from the thoughts and attitudes of readers.

Perhaps finally that may be starting to change. Unfortunately it may be too little, too late.

Perhaps Mr. Meyer will be able to get a job with FOX News. Or maybe he can go the Michael Totten/Michael Yon route and become an independent blogger/journalist existing on what he can earn directly from his readers. That is, if he escapes the clutches of the Irish Thought Police.

I recommend emigration to the U.S. and asylum from political persecution. I wish him a lot of luck.

Frightening the White People

There is an interesting discussion going on in the comments to a post at Snowflakes in Hell on a letter to the editor written by Mike Vanderboegh. Mr. Vanderboegh is a strident voice for the right to arms, an extremist’s extremist. He is, as I described him in my own comment at Snowflakes, the Malcolm X of the gun-rights movement.

He’s the guy who wants to, as SayUncle puts it so wincingly, “frighten the white people.”

Mr. Vanderboegh is currently writing a book, one that makes John Ross’s Unintended Consequences look like a trip to Disneyland. It’s entitled Absolved, and it’s being published, chapter by chapter, on various gun blogs. David Codrea, a member of the Black Rifle Panthers himself, has a link to all the chapters posted so far. You might find it an interesting read. Mr. Vanderboegh is a pretty good writer.

The general consensus of the 66 (so far) comments at Sebastian’s is that actually telling people that gun owners are willing to kill over the right to arms is counterproductive in the struggle to convince a majority that having a right to arms is a good thing. Of course there are those who think Mr. Vanderboegh is off his rocker, or that anyone who doesn’t agree wholeheartedly with him is a traitor, but generally the middle-of-the-road position is “he’s right, but we shouldn’t say things like that out loud.” Most believe that we’re turning back the tide of gun control, and that the Heller decision illustrates this emphatically, so tossing verbal hand-grenades is more than a little counterproductive. Others argue that incidents like the David Olofson prosecution and conviction prove that the government is still coming after us, and they’ll keep doing it retail until they figure out how to do it wholesale.

I’d like to point out that Mr. Vanderboegh is not the only person out there who has stated, seriously, that lethal force against government officials isn’t off the list of possible responses. In fact, in January of 2007 SayUncle (in all seriousness) and Tamara (you never can really tell) made it plain that that was a position they both took.

Mr. Vanderboegh wrote in his letter to the editor:

There are some of us “cold dead hands” types, perhaps 3 percent of gun owners, who would kill anyone who tried to further restrict our God-given liberty. Don’t extrapolate from your own cowardice and assume that just because you would do anything the government told you to do that we would.

SayUncle wrote:

What makes me a gun nut?

Not the number of guns I own. For someone who yammers on so much about guns, I probably own considerably less than the average reader here. I own the following: Ruger 10/22, a Walther P22, Kel-Tec 380, an AR in 9mm, Glock 30, an AR in 5.56. I think that’s it. Six firearms. I have a lot on my to buy list but they always get pushed back due to other priorities or whatever. And here lately, I’ve actually sold a couple of firearms. One, because I didn’t care for it and one because I was offered too much to turn it down.

It’s not that I like how they work mechanically or tinkering. I do that with other stuff and I’m not nuts about that. I like to do woodworking but I am not a woodworking nut. And I don’t blog about woodworking.

It’s not hunting. I don’t hunt.

It’s not the zen of target shooting. I zen playing cards, golf, and other activities as well.

So, what is it? I thought about it long and hard. And it’s this simple truth:

If you fuck with me bad enough, I’ll kill your ass.

Simple. Not elegant. But that truth is what scares the shit out of others and it’s that truth that makes people look at you like you’re crazy. It won’t be a NRA slogan any time soon. But it’s what you’re asserting when you claim to be a gun nut, whether you like it or not.

SayUncle is one of Mr. Vanderboegh’s “3 percent.” So am I. But SayUncle made his statement on a blog, a site read mostly by others who share, largely, the same beliefs. Mr. Vanderboegh made his statement in a newspaper, where people who don’t think the way we do are in the majority.

I’m ambivalent on the topic, myself. I think those who really need to understand that some of us are willing to kill already do. That’s why they go after people like David Olofson – to frighten the rest of us. I think that the 97% of the gun owning population that isn’t on the same wavelength as Mr. Vanderboegh and SayUncle and myself needs to be reminded from time to time that the Second Amendment isn’t about hunting and target shooting and gun collecting. There’s a reason they enumerated an individual right to arms, and it had to do with watering the Tree of Liberty, if necessary.

Where Mr. Vanderboegh and I differ is on when (or whether) that watering needs to be done. I suspect that SayUncle and I are in more agreement that Mr. Vanderboegh and I would be. As I said in my own comment at Snowflakes in Hell:

There’s a group of people, and as far as I can tell it’s growing, that not only believes that we’re headed for violent revolution, they want it.

And what scares me is, sometimes I think they’re right.

Your thoughts?

Firehand Pens an Uberpost

Firehand Pens an Überpost!

Entitled Some more on elite viewpoints and families, it’s worth your time. Excerpt:

(B)oth the Brit and American articles note the collectivist nature of the people who don’t want women to have the choice to stay home. ‘Paying back society’, ‘failing the feminist cause’; you don’t have- or shouldn’t have- an individual life: you have to make your choice(the one allowed) based on what’s best for the collective. Hell, these people might as well put an eyepiece on their Blackberry and walk around saying “You WILL be assimilated.”

Go. Read.

Quote of the Day

Quote of the Day

The Heller vs. D.C. ruling affirming that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms was a major civil-rights victory building on 15 years of constitutional scholarship. Accordingly, we owe a great deal of thanks to principled and dedicated legal academics including Don Kates, Dave Kopel, and the blogosphere’s own InstaPundit (aka Glenn Harlan Reynolds) for their work on the Standard Model of the Second Amendment.

But there was another trend at work; the beginning of public recognition, after the year 2000, that anti-firearms activism has been founded on systematic errors and widespread fraud in the academic literature on gun policy.

The scholar we have to thank most for this awakening is Michael Bellesiles, the author of Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture (September 2000). In looking back on the public debate that led up to the Heller ruling, I can think of no other single person who did so much (even if inadvertently) to change the political climate around gun rights. – Eric S. Raymond, A Brief History of Firearms Policy Fraud

RTWT.

I never thought I’d thank Michael Bellesiles, but Eric makes a very valid point. Anybody know what Podunk Community College he’s teaching at these days, or did I hear that he’d left the country?