2004.11.03 can't win for losing:

needless to say, i've been more depressed today than any day in the last ten years. i'm flabbergasted, completely dumbfounded. everything i thought i knew leading up to this, has been thrown to the ground and stomped on.

ok, hold on. yes, i expected it to be close. yes, i expected the unwashed masses to vote against equal rights. i even expected, on some level, for Mongiardo to lose, though i was hopeful 'til the end (not that i agree with his social conservatism, but he'd've been better than that old coot who won). i expected these things, but i also expected the throngs of liberal voters we were promised, and i expected the reports of skewed poll numbers leading up to the election to have been more accurate. i expected more people to have woken the fuck up during the last four years and to have seen the horror this administration has wrought. i expected quite a bit, and i was sorely disappointed.

as andrew sullivan pointed out, it wasn't the war on terror that was the pivotal issue of the campaign, it was the fear of homosexuals. it was "moral values" that drove the conservative voters to the polls, and it was precisely those "moral values" that Kerry and the other Democratic candidates hadn't campaigned to win.

and the thing that gets me is, how can you claim superior "moral values" when you're preaching discrimination, hatred, misunderstanding, ignorance, denying families the right to exist, stealing money from our children and grand-children (and now, most likely, our great-grandchildren), sending our youth to die for a war based on lies and faulty information, and the economic subjugation of the "lower" classes by the already wealthy? how are those "moral values?"

as you might've read in my last post, that email discussion with my dad, those aren't anything like the "moral values" i was raised to believe in. i was raised to believe that if you treat others with love and respect, that you'll build a better world. unfortunately the policies of those in power operate on a completely different tack. and even worse, the party in power has managed to befuddle the masses to the point where they actually believe they are supporting their values and ideals.

what we need now is to not give up. don't give ground. i dont' know if we need to go as far as Rich Malley suggests, but we certainly need to keep the screws tightening.

more importantly than that, we need to truly educate ourselves and become the shining font of education and information in order to re-establish our reality-based community (sic)
and spread truth.

as i said to my co-worker earlier today, we certainly can't be expected to be imminently knowledgeable about every issue, but we can certainly pick a topic or two to be "experts" on. find something that interests you, study it, learn it inside & out, and anytime you get an opportunity to talk to someone who's uneducated or misinformed about that subject, don't hesitate to shower them with the facts. don't hedge, don't qualify, don't apologize or state your "opinion"—assault them with facts. know both sides of the issue, know what the results of different policies would be, and make sure they understand when they're supporting the wrong ones.

form a network of knowledgeable friends. find out what your buddies know, where their areas of "expertise" lie. when you get in a conversation with someone who's talking wrongly about something your buddy knows inside & out, give him or her a call, or suggest that the person you're talking to seek that person out. or get their email address, and have your buddy contact them. somehow close the gap of knowledge and education.

it is imminently possible to eradicate the republican standard operating procedures of misinformation and miseducation, it's imminently possible to take back the "high ground" on morality and family values, but we can only do it if we can educate ourselves first, and present our personal knowledge in ways that can't be misconstrued. don't leave room for doubt, don't leave room for interpretation. cite fact.

we can take this country back, but we will have to work for it.

- 08:30 pm :: permalink :: 24 comments
categories ::  Calls to Action - Friends - Personal Projects - Politics - Rants - Society - Upset/Dislike

24 Responses to “can't win for losing:”

Javan said:

i think we'll have a country after four years. If not, Canada's not totally dependent on us.

I'm not worried about me. I'm worried about my kids.

# November 3, 2004,

Rocko said:

If you want to change minds, you'll have to use alot more honey and no vinaeger. Vineager? Vinniger.

I'm out there recruiting for the Sith, and I do it by appealing to common sense first, then slowly introduce the dagger I will use to puncture their heart from behind. Your tactics don't work, One Man Band. "Wake up and start agreeing with me!" is shrill. Whining the next day doesn't make you any friends, it undercuts the nobility you so desire, you sound like an asshole when you do that. You can't come out cryin'. You better hope the Dems do what the Reps did 8 years ago when they were square as their fuckin'cubed heads: they woodshopped their whole platform. They cut out douchebags like Newt, gave up on tackling Murphy Brown, they appealed to the center. W was not your father's Republican. Or he was, but he pretended to be compassionate until he got your pants down, and by "you" I mean "America." You're preaching to the converted. Your efforts are futile because you're trying to hard. If you want to change any minds you'll need to appeal to the values key to them at this point in time, if you can't do that you should find some new hobby, one that doesn't blow your blood pressure through the roof.

My votes swing like strange fruit. I'm not in anybody's club. You better hope guys like me vote your way, and if you want to "Make a Difference! (All Rights Reserved)" you can get a good start going by getting your buddy over there to stop calling everybody who doesn't agree with him morons, because you lost the popular vote, sore loser. Suck it up! Adapt. "Well, you're just stupid!" No. Your canidate's whole appeal was "He's not Bush." You'll have to do better than that.

Failing that, money talks and bullshit walks. I might vote for Hillary in 2008 for one sawbuck and a bag of sweet cheeba.

# November 4, 2004,

m@ said:

we'll still have a country after four years, it just might look something like this:
or this:
and yeah, it's the future of the country we should be worried about. because no economy + no environment + no freedoms = no country.

# November 4, 2004,

brian. said:

Who the fuck is Rocko and why does he think he's a Gonzo poet?

# November 4, 2004,

m@ said:

now, rocko, you're absolutely right. that's why i'm not whining, that's why i'm talking about strength, conviction, and truth.

that's why i never once suggested we call everyone who voted for the other side morons or idiots (i may've done it myself once or twice in the past, but that's a trap we need to try not to fall into). what i'm talking about is self-education. we need to improve our own situation before we can offer answers. and also, i'm talking about offering facts. i'm not suggesting we tell people we're right just because we think we're right, i'm saying lay it all out, put the facts out there unapologetically. when you deal in the truth, you don't have to be superior or pompous.

yes, the progressive movement will have to redefine itself. drastic changes. we do have to re-position ourselves to make our own values known. and we have to point out where the opposition's words don't fit their actions. we have to point out where their faith disconnects from their works. if they want to have values discussions, that's fine, the progressive movement is all about values.

where we really need to get our shit together is regarding religion and spirituality. not that we don't have it, or don't respect it, but we need to learn that we can't disparage it when it's the most important thing in another's life.

of course, who am i to propose these things? i don't have all the answers, i don't know how best to frame arguments, i don't know how to best appeal to the most people. i do the best with what i've got and i try to make the best arguments i can. if i preach to the choir, it's only so the choir can leave church and go spread the word beyond my little pulpit.

oh, and if i knew what sweet cheeba was, you'd already be pledging your vote to Hillary.

# November 5, 2004,

m@ said:

as for who Rocko is, the best i can do for explanation is to say he's an infrequent contributor over at LostInLouisville ( http://www.lostinlouisville.com/contributors.htm ), and an intelligent, opinionated, talkative guy. he's a man about town, and i'm sure you've seen him before. he'll probably be at the Reverend Horton Heat show early Dec., complaining about how it's not real rockabilly to whoever'll listen.

# November 5, 2004,

Rocko said:

I probably won't come out for that jive turkey unless the opening band is hot. And it's not so much that he's not real Rockabilly, since Rockabilly is a big time retroactive made up definition that is very loose, it's that he's just generally phoney.

I also don't know the exact definition of "gonzo poet" and don't think I am one, but I think Dan Rather is. "If a bullfrog had sidepockets, he'd carry a revolver." Speak it, dad.

Anyway, quit distracting me, I'm tryin' to tell you something:

I am picking on you a little bit and you are just one guy, but you're one guy with a soapbox and you're, you know, one of "those guys." With the Blog and the pamphlets and you're gonna get all worked up and you Know You're Right and You Know You're Rights and you've been pissed for four years and you're so pissed now that you wanna move to Canada. And that's fine, but when you put that stuff out there in public with such force, you become one of "those guys." And the tribe has spoken: America's swing voters don't agree with "those guys."

To paraphrase John Lennon "If you go carryin' pictures of Michael Moore now, you ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow." And you have to understand now, after this election, is that if you're out there in public and you're Party Faithful and you're an activist an'shit, you can't be saying motherfucking "unwashed masses." You better hope your party takes the unwashed masses out for dinner and a movie, pal.

As a disillusioned democrat, I'm here to tell you: The reason you guys lost is that when they hear "Anybody but Bush" and that stuff, they say "That's fucking crazy, you're crazy, everything you say is coming at me through the fact that you're crazy, you have a pathological dislike of Bush that motivates everything you say." Hell, I had a guy tell me pretty convincingly that the death of Arafat would result in total chaos, but then he started telling me how the crystals he kept in his pocket kept the Demons Away, and I lost the narrative.

Bush sucked in the debates, he lost them. But the only time I felt he was jeopradizing his crucial votes was knocking Clinton, who is still popular. You must appeal to the center, and I don't mean religon, you're probably best to leave that out instead of trying to fake it, and those Jesus People are going to swerve right everytime like a busted shopping cart. Remember Carville's "It's the economy, stupid?" Now hear Rocko; "It's security, douchebag." Security is the new Freedom. Team America is more of a documentry than Moore's movie (the very name of which sickens me) to the silent majority. And you don't agree but you can't just take your ball and go home and talk shit on the net, not if you want to Change A Mind.

Arguing doesn't change minds, it hurts feelings and alienates, or it can be fun, or it can be both, but it won't change minds. It makes the gap wider. The Republicans made up that "Compassionate Conservatism" shit, that's what the Democrats need now, and if you wanna help, you gotta slow your roll with the fuckin' bile because somebody actually reads your shit, and it's having the opposite effect you desire. I've been to this website like 4 times in like 2 years, and it's always just rants against Bush. If you want to help out your cause, you want to appeal to swing voters and those who left your party, and that's who I am. You should get a short sleeved white dress shirt and a black tie, and don't wear it with jeans like you're on saved by the bell, where it with real bants, and you need to start talking about how you can kill our enemies, and you need to say that shit like you mean it, because 9/11 will be the #1 issue for the next 100 years, at least. The days that you could get people to vote based on civil rights are gone, and that's too bad, but it's not our fault. I think it's an embarassing travesty that gay marriage is up to a bunch of people who would be unaffected by it, and further that those unaffected have overwhelmingly decreed what they have, but if you think that really made anyone's mind up about who they wanted for President, I think you're kidding yourself. It's all about keeping the wolves at bay, and that's what everyone I know who voted for Bush tells me, including the gay ones.

# November 5, 2004,

Jen said:

Nicely put, Matt. I've got a fire in my belly as well.

I'm looking for like-minded people to join or bring together, and being an activist is new to me. I want to make an informed decision about where I spend my time and money. Do you have any personal suggestions?

I hope it's ok with you, but I thought I'd share a couple of things I'm going to be doing right away. This election finally drove home the fact that it is most certainly not enough to just vote. Yeah I feel like a jerk for not getting involved sooner, but there's no room for belly-achin' about it now.

I'm joining the ACLU today. And donating. They're in the courts and on the Hill fighting to protect our liberties. unconstitutional provisions of the Patriot Act, Inaccurate No-Fly Terror lists, 4th Amendment, VOTING…

Also, I'm looking at http://www.democracyforamerica.com/ to get involved with true progressives in my community. These people are still going strong, and I like their message.

One more thing. No matter what your political leanings, this is absolutely important and disturbing:
I plan to donate my time and money to this issue immediately.

# November 5, 2004,

Jen said:

Oh and by the way, I am absolutley disgusted with both parties. Kerry was most definitely a lesser of two evils decision for me, and that's still choosing an evil. The Democratic Party is one side of the good-cop bad-cop coin. The Dems are down a deep dark hole with a vacuum for a message.

I'm looking forward to the possibility of Dean running on the Reform ticket in 2008. He understands the route to a unifying message and an empowered citizenry, and has been working with the members steadily all this time to get there.
These people are energized, organized, and they're savvy.

# November 5, 2004,

Jen said:

Enjoyable and insightful points Rocko, but I disagree with you on one major issue.

I know for a fact that arguing (debating) most certainly does change minds. It's been successful with several people in the last few weeks, "even" with a right-wing Christian conservative. It doesn't have to hurt feelings, and it doesn't have to be an ego battle.

In those cases, respect, humanity, facts, patience, and logic won out. This nation was founded on Reason, with the assumption that Reason, applied reasonably, solves disagreements. Even matters of faith can sometimes be reasoned with. Yes, maybe rarely, but sometimes.

# November 5, 2004,

m@ said:

you may not think his version of rockabilly is legitimate or whatever, but i'd hesitate to call someone with this kind of tour schedule ( http://www.reverendhortonheat.com/tourdates_past.php — look at 2000 – 2004) a phony.

and as for zealotry and craziness, i may have my moments, but i'd like to think that i typically come off as fairly even-handed. and this is part of what i'm talking about… the "vocal minority" of activists on both sides *have been* so zealous and antagonistic for so long, that it's automatically assumed that if someone's speaking out against anything that they're automatically a crazy person who can't see beyond their own agenda. it's something that we progressives need to move beyond. we need to stop stooping to the level of spitting and biting, and move on to actual discourse and the recitation of facts.

this is not to say that the administration doesn't need to be stood up to, if they do something truly offensive, sometimes the only choice is to rise up and pitch a fit 'til people notice. the same is true of any administration, and i think i've said as much before about a potential Kerry administration (though i'm not sure if it was here, it might've been on one of my other outlets–conversations, emails, comments on other's blogs). every action taken by any administration from this point on will be endlessly scrutinzed by someone, and any questionable actions will be exposed. this is a positive thing. we have to keep our government honest.

but back to the conversation at hand. there's a drastic rhetoric reduction needed. yes, arguments don't solve anything or convince anyone, and facts are more powerful than bile.

it is a travesty that the anti-equality amendments passed across the board, but that was the issue that brought the voters to the polls. the populace may be more interested in security than freedom and equality at this point in history, but we've got to show that those ideals aren't mutually exclusive.

we need to reclaim our language, we need to counter the demonization of the word "liberal," we need to press the point that conservatives don't have exclusive licensing rights to "moral values" or "patriotism," and yes, we need to show that we have strength regarding the messier issues of foreign policy and security of the homeland.

# November 5, 2004,

m@ said:

jen, thanks. and it's never too late to get active. hell, i didn't do as much as i could, though i actually donated a total $170 to political candidates and causes in the last year, for the first time in my life. but i didn't get out and beat the street, as it were. so there was more i could've done.

and it's kind of funny that my first action (other than ranting here on bipolar) after the election was to… join the ACLU! i was even going to write a post about it, or at least mentioning it. the ACLU will be on the front-lines of repealing the unconstitutional constitutional amendments. we need to support them as much as possible.

i'll definitely check out democracy for america when i get some time. i think it would be good to get a group of people together who can all "join" the same organization and offer support.

there's so much infrastructure out there for liberal and progressive political activism, sometimes i think it's overkill. i think we need to weed some of them out 'til we get a select few very strong organizations. the ACLU was my first choice.

as for disgust with both parties, i typically consider myself an independent. it's only been this election that i've temporarily allied myself with the Dems. now that the battle's been fought, i'm back to just being a progressive liberal. of course, until major changes occur, the third parties won't be viable, so i'll probably have to continue to put my weight behind the Dems when the big show comes to town. i want to be active for liberal/progressive causes in general, but i also want to be able to contribute to something that will have a definite impact. that's why i registered Dem this year, so that i could vote in the primary (of course, KY's primary comes so late as to be pointless). i guess what it boils down to is that i'll vote for who i think is the best candidate that has an actual chance of winning. or, alternately, if the next best guy is demolishing in the polls, i might vote third party just to give the system a goose. OR, being in Kentucky where the liberal voter is obviously becoming a second-class electoral citizen, i may just say fuck it and vote third party anyway. Kentucky's not going to sway a national election, unfortunately–we're pretty much odd man out politically every-which-way, it seems.

oh well. activism still matters, even if our actual vote doesn't.

# November 5, 2004,

paul said:

One of the problems we face in our current political make up is the two party system. Due to money and political clout, the country is forced, for the most part to choose between the Democrats and the Republicans if they want to have a slight chance of getting anything done. The truth of the matter, as the parties currently stand, you can split the Dems and the GOP at least twice. You've got ultra-conservative Republicans, moderate Republicans, centrist Democrats and liberal (it' not a dirty word) Democrats. You could divide it further, but for the sake of argument, four will do for now. That would be a better representation of our country.

As far as bringing flowers and chocolates to the so called moral majority, I'd have to disagree. I'm not going to compromise my values and my morals for the sake of being on the winning team. Sure, there are better ways to invoke change other than shouting, "You're wrong and you suck" but tiptoeing is not the answer. The majority can, and has been, wrong plenty of times in this country. If a small few hadn't raised its voice against the majority that thought such things as slavery and denying women and minorities a voice and vote, things may very differnt in this country today. What some call elitism, I call intelligence; I call it progress.

# November 5, 2004,

m@ said:

hear, hear.

# November 5, 2004,

Javan said:

alright, alright… the ACLU is a joke. Completely. They don't PROVIDE liberties, they TAKE THEM AWAY from the vast majority. Sure, they fight for the little man. I'll give 'em that. But our nation is founded on the principle of majority RULE, minority RIGHT. Not the other way around, mind you.

Thus, I hate the ACLU.

# November 5, 2004,

brian. said:

I'm running for President in 2012.

# November 5, 2004,

Rocko said:

Hey man, a clown can work the circus 365 nights a year, but he's still a clown. Ol' Jim gets points for just having fun, though-more than can be said for Sad Eyed Mike Ness. My ex went to a Social D show instead of Greg Dulli's Twilight Singers and I wanted to break up with her all over again. Politics of music.

I could teach a 6 month course on it, but I'll keep it brief: The term "Rockabilly" is used by the modern preactitioners instead of "Rock'n'Roll" like it was called back in the motherfuckin' day because those Johnnys and Betties don't want you to think they're talking about anything called Rock'n'Roll since 1960. Which I'm not really cool with, since alotta hot shit came out since 1960, but you can't go to a chinese restraunt and tell them they gotta eat hot dogs. That scene still has love for me and it's reciprocated.

Anyway, the term "Rock'n'Roll" came up in Blues songs, again back in the motherfuckin' day, and since DJ Alan Freed (the reason the heart of Rock'n'Roll is in Cleveland) had love and money wrapped up in the music, and knew ma and pa honky would fudge their pants if he called Rhythm and Blues by that moniker, he started saying "Rock'n'Roll". Shades of Compassionate Conservatism.

Anyway, "Rockabilly" as a word is just one more step towards trying to seperate the Chocolate from the Peanut Butter, which is pretty lame…Not just to play down Blues, but to play down flat out Black. Gene Vincent can be Rocckabilly but Chuck Berry can't, so it's all flawed out the ass. The whole concept id fucked.

So, I said that to say this; genre classifications aside, Horton Heat is to Johnny Burnette as Blink 182 is to the Clash.

Another political parallel, the real reason I'm annoyed at the Rev when he's just a harmless parlor act is that so many people get snowed by his shit, but think they're in the know. I saw 5 times as many Greasers at that show than at the good shit on the rare occasion the good shit in that vein rolls through the 'Ville. And that's what really bugs me, although I guess it shouldn't. I think you know where I'm going with that.

Arguing and debating are different, aren't they? Debating has a certain calmness to it, a certain artfulness. Dennis Miller, Bill Maher, Dick Morris, Dick Cheney, George Will, these are debators. Rush Limbaugh, Michael Moore, Alan Keyes, Ann Coulter, these are arguers. Bomb throwers, users of Straw Man Arguements, smear tactics. Bayonets! O'reilley switch-hits.

Me, I probably blur the lines without meaning to, ego vs. ego can even turn into id vs. id. The Devil pops up on one shoulder, the Angel on the other…

I hope one day you dudes get into non-partisanism. It's like you get to ride up in a go kart at the party, hose everybody down with a super soaker, get back in the cart and shag ass. That nervous fight of flight feeling you get when somebody knocks who you voted for goes away forever once you decide you don't love'em or hate'em, you just vote. It's a tao all it's own. Sweet Cheeba.

# November 6, 2004,

Javan said:

hm… don't have time to say much, but "rockabilly" does not necessarily denote the use of an electric guitar. Rockabilly began with Hank Williams, Sr. deciding to pick up the beat with his acoustic and sing songs about drinkin' too much. It all pretty much stemmed from that.

Now, I look at RHH and others as more of a "psychobilly" (just another division, I know) because of their straightforward use of hard rock/metal tactics and riffs.

Johnny Cash is rockabilly. The Meteors, RHH- they are physchobilly. There is a definate difference. Just listen! It's hard to group the two (and others like them) into the same genre. It just wouldn't seem right, there is a world of difference between the styles.

But there is enough similarity that the direct influence of rockabilly on the newer psychobilly is completely obvious. It's an evolution.

I like them both. I REALLY like them both. I admire the creativity of the newer artists to electrify the older style of music: to take tradition, and make it their own.

# November 6, 2004,

m@ said:

the Reverend may be a parlor act, but i find him enjoyable. i don't walk around dressed like a Greaser, and i don't talk like a Greaser because, for one, i just don't think i could pull it off convincingly, and B) i'm not interested in scenesterism. sour grapes? perhaps. style and bearing are not things i can manufacture, so i just exist as myself and hope for the best.

likewise, as i said, i generally consider myself an independent. i think non-partisanism is a stretch, because, quite frankly, Democrats' social and economic polices tend to sync up with my own personal thoughts about how the world should work more often than the other sides' do. so, i'll go to a Democrats show because i enjoy the music they're playing, not because i think they're necessarily the best in their genre.
if a green, libertarian, or reformer happens to say something i agree with, then by all means, i'll throw my hat on that hook for a while, long enough to get the thought out there and spreading. i happen to agree with conservatives/pro-lifers about the partial-birth abortion thing. so, i'll promote that view because the *facts* support it.

besides, i was a Nader supporter in 2000, and the only reason i wasn't this time was because i knew he couldn't win, and we *needed* someone who could win. so, unfortunately, the baby got thrown out with the bathwater. i try to put my voice where it'll do the most good, in 2000 i felt that was in the third party camp, this time it was with the Dems.

so, what the future holds for my political affiliations, i don't know. what i do know is that my values, hopes, and goals are all still intact, and it is those things that i will be exclusively promoting until the next time we have to try to steer this nation back onto the right path.

what i also know, is that i need to investigate a way to do threaded comments. i don't know though, the chaotic back & forth could be considered part of the charm.

# November 6, 2004,

Jen said:

What you need is a forum, young man! Lots to talk about, and these comment dealies are kinda a pain in the ass when they get interesting and all long and ridiculous. Plus, you could talk about your bands and stuff. 🙂

you probably weren't talking about me, and you'd probably hate me (if you cared to) since I just went to a Social D show in Chicago and had an amazing time, and admire Ness, but, I said all that to ramble on to this:
I'm no partisan. I hate the system, Dems or Reps. Bah piss on it.

Well hell, Happy Birthday Matt!!! 31's been treating me pretty alright. I hope it does right by you too.

If you're interested, for forum code, this ain't too bad:

# November 6, 2004,

Anonymous said:

If there's any one subject I could pull rank on anybody under 50 on, it's Rockabilly. I won't name drop, but I've got friends who were there, I read a buncha books and shit, spent more money and time on records and imported CDs than anyone should, from an earlier age than most people would. I wore all the shit and "lived the lifestyle" and all that jive. I love it, it's me. Sometimes I wish I knew as much about, say, the stock market. I wish it was still as interesting to me as it was 11 years ago, too, but hey. It's still in my whole makeup.

I've heard a million people say what is and isn't Rockabilly and where it did and didn't start, I've met windbags who said they invented it like it was velcro or something, I know tons of guys who cut records now called Rockabilly who didn't hear the term until 1989. While electric guitar isn't a must, Hank and Cash have never been in the equation from anyone I've talked to or anything I have read. Usually the feeling that a greater influx of Blues is required, but usually not enough to, you know, look into it enough to buy a Howlin' Wolf record. A big thing in Europe and with some record geeks is that there must be one guitar, one bass, one vocalist, no drum, and that only the Burnettes, Warren Smith, and Charlie Feathers would qualify. The purists of that stripe even discount Carl Perkins, only because one of his brothers played drums, even as just a timekeeper. Those who embrace that theory usually feel that the whole thing is extinct and aren't the kind of people who leave the house much, anyway, so you don't get to debate OR argue with those squares too often.

More often, the term is expanded to include Sun Records, Meteor Records, and a few others from that bunch. It's been stretched to include more Northern guys like Eddie Cochran and Gene Vincent, 2 of my most favorite. Gene especially is a stretch; by the time his Blue Caps reached Full Force there were 6 or 7 of them, including 2 backup singers, a sax, and an electric bass. Today if an electric bass comes out at a Rockabilly show people hit the door like Great White took the stage. Jerry Lee Lewis is considered Rockabilly. As I said, still nobody brings up Chuck Berry.

The only record of the word "Rockabilly" coming up in the actual period usually comes as more a descriptive phrase than as a genre. There's only 2 examples I can think of off hand: Johnny Burnette's "Rockabilly Boogie" which details a party at a juke joint, and a bit of Gene Vincent promotional material that referred to him as "The RockBilly Man." The theory is that it was obscure and rarely used at the time but has now become popular with the people obsessed with it as it is very pre-1960. I can't tell you how many times I've read or heard "Back then, we just called it Rock'n'Roll." Alot of the guys who cut those records hated them, released them under aliases, didn't want to do them. George Jones to this day denies that he was Thumper Jones, performer of "Oak Tree Rock."

So I said all that to say this; Throw the genre rulebook out the fucking window. Hair splitting is for nobody, and if the guys at Sun had been so concerned with what constituted what and what they were gonna name what, they sure wouldn't have come up with anything.

No Psychobilly tune I've ever heard matches the Burnettes stuff, or Link Wray, it usually strikes me as just "Argh, I'm a monster!" Punk Rock tantrum meets the more Real Deal. That's not to say I don't like any of it, there was a Three Bad Jacks show I was at that ended in a mini-riot that was the Rock'n'Roll Dream. Whatever gets you off, I just wish that everybody with a Horton Heat album would then buy a Burnette album. It would be like watching the Untouchables and then watching Goodfellas, watching Titanic and then watching Citizen Kane. Matt will probably actually look into it, he's that kinda guy, I think.

There's quite a few things that have come from the last 50 or so years that maintain the tradition but add something new. The Blasters, Big Sandy, High Noon, Restless, to name a few. The ones that I liked the best also happened to be the most divisive to the scene, like the "progressive" Atomics who commited the ultimate sin of making songs longer than 3 minutes. I got mad at the scene for a couple years for ignoring them until they died on the vine, for refusing to acknowledge Soul and Blues, for talking shit cuz I shaved my Pompadour. The scene is full of re-enactors who consider themselves removed from society; the joke is all you non-Rockabilly people are "civilians." I made a bunch of good friends from all over the country thanks to a love of the junk, but I didn't make any new friends in that world for awhile. I came back around, though, much like with politics you gotta accept certain things that might not sit well with you. (The analogy just slapped you in the mouth in case you missed it all along) As I've always lived in another town my approach has been unique, anyway. One day I'll make a documentry about the scene, I'm the only one who could do it because I'm trusted by those people but still the kinda cat who's gonna talk to you guys and buy Outkast CDs and shit. It would be a big hit movie so long as I could make it interesting to someone who whould never consider putting pomade on their dome, which I'm not certain I could do.

here lately I've aligned myself with a guy called MC Bootyslappa (www.bootyslappa.com) who is going to either make a zillion dollars or be murdered by the Rockabilly Puritan Extremist Mafia.

As for politics, iy'll happen with or without us, but I think the Democratic Party is going to be "closed for repairs" until the midterm in 2006, at which time maybe they'll be talking something I wanna hear. Wether or not they can get me and still keep you, however, might be a different story. Wouldn't it be irobic if I find myself voting for Democratic Nominee John McCain (You know he just can't fucking wait to switch over) while you vote for Ian McKay or somebody based on principle, and all the votes go approximately as they did tuesday. All I can tell ya for sure is, I've voted for the winner every time I've voted for president, and I've voted in 3 elections.

# November 6, 2004,

Rocko said:

Mike Ness is the guy who graduated from your high school 5 years before you went there but was still hanging out in the parking lot trying to get laid.

# November 6, 2004,

m@ said:

rocko, i should probably get you to do a guest post on the history of rockabilly or something.

# November 7, 2004,

Rocko said:

Just cut and paste, man. I give you carte blanche. I'll write you an original material history of some other made up word, like "haberdash" or "tomfoolery." Some people say Tomfoolery was invented by Mark Twain, but I think evidence suggests that it goes back to the DoDo. I have no patience for such "modern Tomfoolery" like Jackass, the last true Tomfools were the Three Stooges..I intend to debate/argue the issue until I no longer draw breath, which might be sooner than we think since I've started my diet consisting only of processed meat cooked on the George Foreman grill and candy.

# November 8, 2004,