Alphecca

Loose Ends...

I'm supposed to be on vacation this week because I have a 3 week stretch coming up where I'll be filling in for someone on vacation and might only get a day or two off during that time. BUT life is not fair and I've got so much work to do that I suspect I'll have to go in a couple times this week to attack the paperwork pile. *Sigh*

Anyway, I do have some good news. The Taurus PT 909 is all paid for (thanks for the help of that from many of you) and I'll be picking it up this Saturday when the VT FFL can meet me at the NH gun shop where I bought it. Naturally I'll have pictures and (when the snow melts) a range report. Thanks to everyone who kicked in.

Next -- since this is a hybrid sort of post -- my Superbowl prediction. Warning: Whoever I choose, bet the other way! In the seventies I was a huge football fan (and wagerer) and made a pile of money from betting on the Steelers. Those were the days of Terry Bradshaw, Mean Joe Green, Franco Harris, Rocky Blier, Jack Lambert and Jack Hamm, Lynn Swann, etc.

They almost always covered the spread, crushing any team that got in their way. They were a sure bet. Old habits die hard so I'm going with them on Sunday.

Follow-up email to this post from last week about media bias. Regular reader/friend Jim Dunmyer reports on another egregious example:

In January, 2002, after Michigan's shall-issue CCW law had been in effect for about 6 months, the Detroit Free Press (no friend of ours!) ran an article about the results to that date. Cliff Notes: 21,000+ permits issued, 9 had been revoked for any reason, only 1 involved a gun, a case of brandishing in a threatening manner. Comments were generally positive, including quotes from police & prosecutors, including some who had been dead-set against the law. Although I don't generally read the (way too liberal) Freep, I did happen to see that article and read it thoroughly.

That night, I was watching the 11:00 news and the bitch talking head "reported" on that story. Naturally, she didn't reveal the source, but the worst part was that she turned the story on its head:

"Well, Michigan's CCW law has been in effect since last July, and the results are in: so far, 21,000 permits have been issued." Raising eyebrows a bit, she continues, "Already, NINE have been revoked, ONE involving use of a gun." And a bit more nonsense, implying, "Look at the terrible situation in Michigan, we sure-as-hell don't want something like that in Ohio, do we?"

(Ohio's CCW law was under debate at the time, but it took a couple more years to get it passed) No mention that the revocations amounted to .04% and that almost any minor misdemeanor or restraining order would cost you your permit.

Needless to say, I was infuriated. Blasted off an Email to the news director, which actually elicited a reply. He said, "perhaps we shouldn't have used the modifiers.." I replied that "perhaps you should have reported the story the way it was written; it was POSITIVE in the paper, you turned it upside-down".

I try to not let them get away with this crap without at least a comment. Same goes with anti-gun articles in the papers, I'll often write letters of rebuttal.