February 14, 2006

What if (name) had shot a guy?

Steve Gilliard has found an article written by a plastic surgeon about what being 'peppered' in the face by a shotgun does to a person. Over at dKos, thereisnospoon suggests that the story is the perfect Bush regime metaphor, which will guarantee it a long life in the press. Too bad for Cheney that he doesn't seem to have spent enough time in gun safety training, a problem he might not be facing right now if he hadn't gotten all those Vietnam-era deferrments.

Much commenting in various places has wondered what the reaction would be if some Democrat, like say John Kerry, had done this. That's a good question, one to which I think we all know a close enough answer, but here's another: What if the shooter (and finally, Cheney has proved himself willing to pull the trigger himself) had been any black or latino politician or racial justice movement leader?

Can you imagine the comments that would fester at the Free Republic? At Little Green Footballs? The sideways suggestions that so-and-so had surely spent too much time growing up in the ghetto. That gangsta culture and the poison of rap and hip-hop was invading yet another sphere of public life. The inevitable photoshop of the firearm safety-challenged pol with their face pasted onto the body of an entertainer dressed as a pimp or street thug. The characterization of the political group they belonged to as a street gang. Don't even try to tell me that my bland scenario wouldn't have been exceeded within an hour of the story breaking.

So, what's on the Freepi menu regarding the "Cheney's Got a Gun" (good gravy, but I love The Daily Show) story? A Knight Ridder article entitled "Cheney's companion at fault in shooting, White House says," which was veritably pushed off the page by all manner of stories at the time of this posting. Among those stories were three about former Vice President Al Gore who by all accounts, if you can believe it, is travelling around the country and sometimes the world ... brace yourself ... sharing his views with public audiences and participating in the making of a documentary about global warming.

If Al Gore had shot someone in the lamest hunting accident in history, it would be jeers about how awkward he's always been or rumors that it was political payback. It would be bad press to be sure and you'd have Republicans cracking jokes about needing to duck every time they heard his name, but I'm inclined to believe that if Barack Obama or Al Sharpton had done this, the wingnuts would have been calling for jail time and making racial slurs within the hour. Because some of us are more equal than others, just for the hell of it.

Posted by natasha at February 14, 2006 03:16 AM | US Politics | Technorati links |

The victim is a lawyer. Wonder how he likes being blamed? :)

Posted by: Scorpio at February 14, 2006 05:07 AM

Found you surfing. Nice blog, your header says it all.



To: U.S. Congress and the FCC

We, the undersigned, while believing in the importance of a Free Market and Freedom of Speech, also believe in the importance of The Public Airwaves to be used as mandated by the FCC "...In the Public Interest, Necessity, and Convenience." We believe the use of The Public Airwaves is crucial to spread knowledge, culture, and civics. We therefore write to petition you to consider major changes in the allocation of the Broadcast Spectrum.

The Public Airwaves are a Vast Toxic Wasteland.
Congress needs to hold hearing on THE STATE OF THE AIRWAVES.
They would find:

1) That the Broadcast and Cable companies have not lived up to using the Public Airwaves, as the FCC mandated "... in the spirit of Public Interest, Necessity, and Convenience."

2) That the FCC and Congress have " given away, rent free", the Public Airwaves.

3) That the Broadcast and Cable companies have "... made so much money doing IT'S worst, IT can't afford to do better."

In the 1990's the FCC, with much support from the Congress, auctioned off portions of the Broadcast Spectrum. One portion of the Spectrum that was being auctioned would potentially reach 16 million customers (citizens). Almost as many people as the population of the state of Texas.

That particular portion sold for $3.00. Three dollars! When former FCC chairman Reed was asked to comment, he said "...I wish I had three dollars".

This cavalier policy and stewardship of the Public Airwaves has been good for the Broadcast and Cable companies, and their stock holders. And absolutely hideous for Civics, Public Affairs, and Democracy.

Before 2009, the FCC will give away more of the Public Airwaves, worth between 80-100 billion dollars. Once again, the Public will be outside, looking in, as the Broadcast Spectrum goes to the highest campaign contributors.

What does the Public receive from the License holders, for their use of the Broadcast Spectrum? Inexpensive Cable and Satellite packages? Intellectually stimulating programs broadcast into our homes at no charge? Choices and Diversity? Event coverage and programming with redeemable qualities? Or is it "...500 channels and still there's nothing worth watching".

There are many Independent, Grassroots, and Localized ways to use the Broadcast Spectrum. But on the National level, the Country needs more Public affairs, more Civics. The unedited, undefiled paradigm C-SPAN has perfected, is the only thing We can all agree on. It promotes Democracy and Participation. Not even the corporate media conglomerates can be against Democracy.

We therefore call on the Congress, and the FCC, to hold hearings on the benefits of more C-SPAN. And to take steps to move forward with the endeavor of creating more C-SPAN Companion Networks. When there is more than enough Broadcast Spectrum to dedicate to Civics, Culture, History and Democracy, We should not allow greed to get in the way of the Public Interest, Necessity and Convenience.

Put the Public back in the Public Airwaves.


Posted by: cspanjunky at February 14, 2006 05:36 AM