Take a look at any long-lived punk band and you'll usually see one of three patterns. They will remain relatively the same throughout their life, like the Ramones; they will gradually change within the punk genre over the years, like Agnostic Front; in some cases, however, they leave their punk roots and go exploring for a bit. The Cockney Rejects are one of those bands that fit into that third category, which, for the purposes of this article, I shall call the Punk Progression Paradigm.

   This progression starts simply, the band is a group of young punk rockers, skinheads, or what have you. They release some albums, EPs, singles. Most of this early material sounds similar, it might vary a bit as they try to find their sound. Then something happens, maybe they get to a point where they realize they're getting repetitive, or a key member of the band leaves, or maybe they just want to reach a larger audience. Whatever the case, their sound changes significantly.

   The second step in this progression is the release of an album that is more in line with a sound that is rising in popularity at the time. During the 1980s this would often be a post-punk or new wave sound, or hard rock and heavy metal was another popular alternative. This would last for a few albums and then, either by conflict within the band, or just never getting the new sound to really catch on, the band's momentum just peters out. They'll often go on hiatus, explore solo work, or just call it quits entirely.

   The final stage is the return to form. The band comes back with a new album that has more in common with their earlier works than with their more recent offerings. Some old members may have returned to the line-up. Perhaps that old style they used to play is seeing a resurgence in popularity. Regardless of the reason, they return to that original style, older and wiser, and with that maturity reflected in their sound. The old energy isn't quite there, but the albums are enjoyable.

   So let's take a step through the Reject's catalog and see how they followed this paradigm...

   I left the Libertarian Party today. It was a long time coming. There wasn't much to it, really, I just went online and changed my voter registration to NPA. Nothing will really change for me during the primary elections. It was more of a symbolic thing. I am no longer affiliated with a party whose ideals are a corrupted form of true libertarianism.   

   About twenty years ago, I joined the Libertarian Party because I believed in its stated ideals of personal freedom and limited government. I took their political quiz, and its cleverly worded questions placed me nearly as far "libertarian" on the grid as I could go. I listened to voices in the media that claimed to be libertarian, absorbing all of their information as an eager student. In time I came to believe that free markets were the magical cure for all of the world's ailments. I came to believe that anything remotely socialist was antithetical to freedom. I did not realize at the time, that what I was being sold was actually anarcho-capitalism.

   Oddly enough, the catalyst for this change was in studying the origins of libertarianism. The libertarian philosophy is rooted in socialism, not laissez-faire capitalism. The classic and modern forms of libertarianism are very similar except for that one difference. It's a fundamental difference, though. Libertarianism begins with personal autonomy. You cannot have personal autonomy when capital is unevenly distributed, as those who control more capital have at least some influence over the lives of those who control less. Capital always becomes unevenly distributed. A libertarian platform must contain a socialist economic policy.

   I love the silent film era. I won't say I'm a connoisseur, but I have a deep fondness and appreciation of the aesthetic of silent era cinema. To watch a silent film is to look through a window into another time. Though silent films were produced from 1888 until 1935, the era was really in its prime for the first quarter of the twentieth century. While there are exceptions, those produced in the nineteenth century were, in my view, still a product of a developing art form, and those produced in the last 10 years or so of the era were beginning to transition into more modern cinema.

   Many of the producers and directors of the silent era are largely forgotten by modern audiences, if they were even known in the first place. Some may recognize names such as Cecil B DeMille or Hal Roach, but such a prolific innovator as Georges Méliès or the great expressionist Robert Wiene would mostly bring blank stares when mentioned to a contemporary movie-goer. Those who do not respect cinema, simply look at this first frontier of the art form as dated or quaint in comparison with today's impossibly fast paced eye candy. For those who know, however... For those who understand and appreciate this form of art, even in its infancy, the films of the silent era allow us to be observers in time, transported by the art itself, as no other form of art can accomplish.

   Every year around Christmas, when I can find the time, I like to look at a particular collection of silent films. I have a DVD called A Christmas Past that contains nine silent era films from 1901 through 1925, all relating to the Christmas holiday. This collection embodies the Christmas holiday spirit for me like no other film can. With the flickering of eighteen frames per second tricking your mind into believing you are relaxing by a warm fire, an the masterful score by Al Kryszak, whose festive violin and peaceful, perhaps even haunting, handbells and piano, bring your mind back to not only another time, but another way of life. The films and the score fit together with such perfect precision, one might even for a moment believe it to be hand crafted by elves with Christmas magic at their command.