Last night, Flogging Molly kicked off the Florida Music Festival downtown with a bad ass show and I was lucky enough to grab an extra media pass at the last minute and have a fantastic night seeing one of my favorite bands from times badly missed. Back when we used to sit on the hot black tar of Florida asphalt outside Static and Barberellas was the place to be on a Sunday night.

Luckily I didn’t have to mash in with the crowd and risk getting kicked in the head by a crowd surfer as has happened to me so many times. (ahem, dropkick murphies + steel toed boots = pain) I got to be right up front in the scary press zone 4 inches from the stage with all that is separating us and our cameras from the huge, sweaty vortex of a punk show mosh pit is a flimsy metal gate and two beefy security dudes. They were in the fight for their lives to try to keep the gate and the crowd from squishing us like tiny ladybugs.

After a few shots of whiskey, I managed to get some good shots of the band with my much-less nice camera than the other media were toting. During the second half of the show, after the videographers left and they cut the media from the front of the stage I decided to take a chance and head over to the other wing and the stage entrance. The one apathetic security guard just shrugged when I asked if I could get onto stage to shoot from the wings, so I ended up spending the second half of the show about five feet from the band right next to some monitors. It was freaking awesome, I must say. There were a few other drunk media guys there that were just dancing and jamming to the music so I tried to shed my fear of ‘i don’t belong here’ and just enjoyed the show from the best seat in the house. It’s nights like this that remind me why my job is awesome.

I read an interesting article in The Economist today about the dangerous new monarchical tendencies that are sweeping American politics. It accurately pointed out something that is a commonly known fact, but one that we seem to be brushing off as a harmless byproduct of political fame: the Bush/Clinton dynasties that have had a stronghold on political power for 28 years now.

One dramatic quote that really caught my attention was this:

“There is nothing inherently wrong with the children or wives of politicians seeking high office, but there is definitely something wrong when people start treating them as heirs to the throne rather than candidates. And there is something very wrong indeed when people begin to see politics as a game that is played by “them” rather than “us”.”

We have always prided ourselves on our presidents and politicians coming from meager backgrounds and ascending to political fame and fortune. And by some measures it is still alive and well. Few people have to ask John Edwards what his childhood was like – rarely do 15 minutes pass before he makes another comment about being the son of a mill worker.

Candidates for political power still embody much of the proletarian spirit that has built our “government of the people, by the people, for the people”, but those candidates have lately remained just that-candidates. Edwards, though his current financial status takes him off of the list of regular folk, was within grasp of power the last time around, but only by playing second fiddle to a pure bred politico and a descendent of the wealthy Forbes family.

Currently, the media is smacking their collective lips at the fat lead Senator Clinton has gained in the polls against her Democratic rivals. As she barges down the runway to 2008, she is dropping gift-wrapped ratings into the laps of rival network news factions that make a fortune on either loving or hating the Senator. But, unsurprisingly, the media is on a dangerous ledge by failing to adequately discuss what another bout of Clinton presidential power means for the future of our democracy. By creating, if through name recognition alone, apparent heirs to the throne of the president we are jeopardizing the very democracy that we pride ourselves on.

The fact that the Bush/Clinton dynasty is destined to continue (if 2008 is not successful for Clinton it is likely no more than a small pause in the monarchy) is just another symptom of a population gripped by fear of breaking the hold of our oppressive two-party system.

I watch with jealousy the wild and disparate candidates that pepper elections in other nations. I wish that fringe candidates and those that provide strikingly different viewpoints would be seriously allowed into the conversation instead of just tolerated for a debate or two and then left to be laughed at in the op-ed pages. Maybe not in hopes that they will win, but to break the drip of stale and recycled political rhetoric that comes out of so many mouths.

The debate over political dynasties has little to do with the individual politics or personality of anyone in the Bush or Clinton clans. Whatever your political ideology, it’s not healthy for a handful of families to tighten the reigns on political variety. As warm and fuzzy as your memories of the Clinton years may be, or however much you think of the Bushes as a royal family, we must stop this slide towards monarchism.

It is tempting and comforting to return to the familiar, but if this wash of nostalgia has the chance, it will settle like a fog over our political system and blur the vision of democracy that, for better or worse, keeps us going.

*One of my favorite Bill O’Reilly quotes.

Yes, it’s really this big.

A fascinating study by Indiana University was released yesterday creating parallels between the propagandistic tendencies of the FOX News channel’s most popular figure, Bill O’Reilly, and the famed 1930’s Fascist radio commentator, Father Charles Coughlin.

The study, titled “Victims, Villains, and the Virtuous in Bill O’Reilly’s No Spin Zone”, makes the argument that O’Reilly uses similar tactics to berate and degrade his guests, creating an undeniable line of distinction between the offenders and the victims on a broad number of issues.

The study found that during the “Talking Points Memo” on his show, that O’Reilly uses derogatory language towards his guests on average every 6.8 seconds. The most common targets are the media, Democrats, illegal immigrants, and terrorists. Astonishingly, (well, not if you ever actually watch his show) of the group of people that he frequently uses this type of aggressive hate speech towards, terrorist organizations and the media (what he repeatedly calls the ‘liberal drive by media’, lest you think FOX might be included in it) make up an almost identical portion (21.6% and 21.4%, respectively). Now, I’m not a huge fan of the mainstream media, but seriously?!

I’m not going to go into detail, the authors of the study do a much better job that I can. Please check out their findings, though, they make quite a compelling and scary argument that this propagandistic con man is parading around as a journalist. I wonder if FOX is going to cover the story…

Check out the Indiana University study here: HERE

There are few news articles that make me gag anymore. Sad, I know, but I think I’m jaded.

Most news, however scandalous the ’story of the day is’ might be, is monotonous and predictible. The latest corporate scandal or political gaff barely elicits a raised eyebrow these days, so I was quite surprised to have almost thrown up to the news that Rupert Murdoch (of FauX News fame), via his company News Corps., has put out an astronomical bid to buy the Dow Jones company, the overlord of the Wall Street Journal, at approximately 60% over the company’s worth. The WSJ made a point of saying that the bid was ‘unsolicited’, but the fact that they’re actually considering taking the offer surprises me. But it shouldn’t. It’s an offer they can’t refuse.

The Offender

This very much speaks to a larger issue, one that has made me even more adamant not to ever participate in the corporate business of mainstream newspapers.

What disgusts me is the major newspaper conglomerate’s self-appointed birthright to massive corporate profits. We hear a lot of whining in the news lately about the falling profits of newspapers and how the poor papers are struggling to survive and laying off reporters and other staff. But underneath the whining about falling profits is the unmistakable stamp of corporate greed. When profits fall from astronomical heights, there’s a long way to go before you hit bottom. I’m not saying that newspapers should forgo their for-profit status and become a public service, (well, maybe they should) but for the sake of rationality, if you’re whining about your annual income being ONLY $29 million, I don’t think you have much room for complaint. Back in the heyday of newspaper companies, before cable and Internet provided alternatives to the holy printed page, papers were practically guaranteed monstrous profits because they were monopolies. It’s like the major oil companies today. You can bet that they’re enjoying their overstuffed pockets today, and as soon as oil is no longer the black lifeblood of society (and that day will come – soon) and their profits fall – we’ll hear our fair share of whining. What, I only made $9 billion? What a rip off!

That’s what happens when major industries fall out of fashion or are replaced by technology. The newspaper industry is just going to have to figure out how to stay in the game – or accept that they are no longer going to have a guaranteed profit windfall.

Sorry for the tangent, but this really relates to why we shouldn’t be surprised by the WSJ’s consideration of the offer. At a time when they’re whining about not earning as much as they rightful feel they should – why not take the money and run?

I’m sure this was just an attempt not to scare off any potential or current readers that haven’t picked up on the WSJ’s, um, ‘preference’, but their article about the proposed acquisition made only the tiniest reference to the blatant conservative bias that FOX calls news. “And Mr. Murdoch has hankered after the Journal for many years. The conservative slant of the editorial page reflects closely his own political views.” (From online.wsj.com). If the WSJ succumbs to avarice and becomes the next cog in the wheel of the Murdoch enterprise, should we be surprised?

I’m not particularly scared that the WSJ will turn into another megaphone for the Right, (heck, News Corp. own the Village Voice), but it’s just another sad realization of what the newspaper giants are willing to do for a profit they feel they are entitled to. They’re not the first to sell their souls and they won’t be the last. It’s just funny how frequently the devil ends up being Rupert Murdoch.