2004-10 Vital Source Mag – October 2004
Robyn Hitchcock
By Jon M. Gilbertson Yep Roc www.yeproc.com William Burroughs complained that the English were capable of granting him hours of charming conversation without telling him anything personal about themselves. The English have never filed an official reply, but singer/songwriter Robyn Hitchcock—an English charmer since at least 1977 (when he formed the Soft Boys and introduced literate wit to punk rock) —would probably suggest to Burroughs that at least he got an evening’s entertainment. Nevertheless, Hitchcock reaches his most affecting moments when he at least gives the appearance of dropping his verbose reserve. With Spooked, his two major accompanists are Nashville residents Gillian Welch and David Rawlings, who have made their own careers from a history of honest and moderated revelation. They gently encourage him to play quietly, and in the familiar crackling of his voice there comes a sense that he’s actually checking to see that what he sings is worth saying. Hitchcock scatters a handful of the usual chuckled asides (“We’re Gonna Live in the Trees”) and obsessions (“Demons and Fiends”), but the atmosphere of the recording—two friends welcoming a third into their circle and letting him hold forth—coaxes intimacy from his sheltered heart. The feathery “Full Moon In My Soul” ranks among his finest true love songs; the delicate fingerpicking of “Television” indicates genteel sympathy for its TV-addicted protagonist; and the airy “Flanagan’s Song” closes Spooked in hushed reflection. In conversation with Rawlings and Welch, Robyn Hitchcock charms, to be sure, but he also tells them a few things about himself. On November 5, Robyn Hitchcock plays Shank Hall, 1434 N. Farwell Ave.
Oct 1st, 2004 by Vital Archives
Anybody But Bush?
By John Hughes American electoral politics is not so much an organized debate over the supremacy of ideologies—a national, logical quest for the best governing ideas—but a rugged skirmish between two warring camps. It’s a ruthless wrestling for power. Oftentimes, the coalition with the most money wins the election. The media, often portrayed as liberally biased, but almost always owned by very wealthy white men, plays a huge role, as does the charisma, or lack thereof, of the candidates. There are famous examples of the power of charisma: Kennedy vs. Nixon, Reagan vs. Carter, Reagan vs. Mondale, Clinton vs. Dole. This fact, of two vast coalitions in a constant struggle of power and public relations, without tremendous regard for fairness or even truth, rankles many people. The rankled people, when they feel that they don’t fit under the electable umbrella of either coalition, become disenfranchised. When they discover that there are millions of other disenchanted citizens, they form a coalition of the rankled: a third party movement. Third parties: a voice for our righteous indignation. In the Presidential election of 2000, the candidacy of legendary consumer rights crusader Ralph Nader, as the nominee of the Green Party, garnered four percent of the vote, but considerably more than that in media attention. George W. Bush defeated Al Gore in one of the thinnest electoral victories in history, and Nader’s winning of 2.8 million potential Gore supporters converged with the voting poll and juridical farces in Florida to deliver the presidency to Bush. But what drives people to support Ralph Nader or David Cook or, for that matter, Ross Perot or Jesse Jackson or John Anderson, or 1948’s Henry Wallace? The answer lies in understanding what drives third party movements. Third parties share the desire to be heard, for acknowledgement of ideas not necessarily prioritized by the two mainstream parties. Some of the best, if least powerful, desire that the process be a debate over ideas, rather than a cage match for political domination. Third parties are also about righteous anger. The elections of Presidents have a pre-fabricated feel to them. There are obviously many individuals of good will and honest intentions within each coalition, but the Democratic and Republican parties themselves became machines long ago, with the twin primary motives – self-perpetuation and self-assertion. In the eyes of many independent voters, this underlying motivation translates into unacceptable policy. There’s a time for independence, and a time for… Even to the most casual and jaded observer it’s evident that altruism, the genuine desire for the highest good for the greatest number of people, has taken a back seat to power politics. Third party movements are an attempt to cleanse the temple, overthrow the tables and bring altruism and egalitarianism to prominence in our national conversation. In Wisconsin, third party politics plays a major role in electing public officials. Lest we forget, Ralph Nader won 94,070 votes in Wisconsin in 2000. Al Gore barely won the state, holding off Bush by just 5,708 […]
Oct 1st, 2004 by Vital Archives
Jeremy Rottgen Sneaks Backstage with the Misfits
By Jeremy M. Rottgen We used to cruise around in my friend’s car before and after school, listening to the Misfits before and after school. Yelling at the top of our lungs to every song was a cleansing experience after a long, institutionalized day. In 1998, the Misfits consisted of founding bass player Jerry Only and his chord-pounding brother, Doyle Wolfgang Von Frankenstein. Singer Michael Graves and drummer Dr. Chud were new additions to the band, and maybe only a year or two older than we were. The Misfits came to the Eagles Ballroom that year with none other than Megadeth, a band I still emulate in my own music. My friends and I were pumped. A female friend of ours showed up to the show in a Marilyn Monroe Goth-type dress. The Misfits’ bus driver spotted her and invited her on to the bus. She emerged a minute later in tears of joy. “I saw them shaving,” she said excitedly. When the show started, all seemed calm until the howl of Doyle’s guitar ripped through the air. It was pure, hellish joy. I remember a girl with a fork bent around her wrist, scraping and poking people in the pit. Ouch. After the Misfits left the stage, I went to buy sodas. Maneuvering through the crowd, I looked up to see my friends pointing to stairs leading down to some mysterious location. Having no clue, I followed them, double-fisting two root beers. We entered the room at the bottom of the steps, and it blew our minds. As we rounded the corner we up on two of the very large men who’d just kicked everybody’s asses on stage. There they sat quietly, sweat pouring off them. Holy shit. It was Jerry and Doyle. When you think about “backstage” at a rock show, you think of champagne spraying, groupies floundering and things smashing. Or at least my friends and I did at the time. But this was not one of those dressing rooms. We stood there, trying to get our heads around our favorite horror punk band sitting around like a family in a living room. It was humbling to hear Jerry talk about his daughter and wanting to know what we younger folks were into these days. What else could we say? The Misfits and PlayStation basically ruled our lives. Jerry was very cordial, offering us any drinks or food we wanted from their table. After all, they weren’t eating most of it: these guys worked out … a ton. They didn’t fuel themselves with Twinkies and Cheeto’s. Jerry, tearing the tab from a gallon of milk with his teeth, offered protein shakes. “Dave’s got us on this Met-RX shake” he offered. To which I responded, “Oh yeah, he kick boxes.” My knowledge of Megadeth trivia still astounds me. I’m such a dork. Chud searched around for some ‘real food.’ “Here” said Doyle. “Have a roast beef […]
Oct 1st, 2004 by Vital Archives
Afghanistan
By Paul McLeary “Our Nation is standing with the people of Afghanistan and Iraq, because when America gives its word, America must keep its word. As importantly, we are serving a vital and historic cause that will make our country safer.” “Since 2001, Americans have been given hills to climb, and found the strength to climb them. Now, because we have made the hard journey, we can see the valley below. Now, because we have faced challenges with resolve, we have historic goals within our reach, and greatness in our future.” “Our allies also know the historic importance of our work. About 40 nations stand beside us in Afghanistan, and some 30 in Iraq.”Above from Bush from RNC “Afghanistan is free and moving forward.”Donald RumsfeldDoD New Briefing, Jan 06, 2004 “The job in Afghanistan is only half done and will be no easier in the year ahead.”Kofi AnnanUnited Nations Secretary-GeneralUN Press Conference, Dec 18, 2003 While we are all familiar with the debacle that has become the occupation of Iraq the original salvo in the war on terrorism, Afghanistan, has faded well into the background over the past year and a half. The quick, relatively bloodless victory in Afghanistan was supposed to be a shining example of everything that is right with the American military machine. In targeted, lightning strikes, less than 10,000 American troops defeated the Taliban and scattered al Qaeda’s leadership across the mountainous border region with Pakistan, and for a time, we seemed poised to capture Osama bin Laden and his Taliban host, Mullah Omar. The United States had been sucker punched on 9/11 but had quickly identified its enemy and through tough, decisive action, was poised to bring him to justice. By the end of 2001, we had scored a major victory in the war on terrorism while the world stood with us in our grief, sending military and civilian aid to help in the reconstruction of the country we had recently vanquished, and indeed, liberated. The Administration fiddles while Afghanistan burns.But by the end of 2002, the world had become a very different place. More than 200,000 members of the U.S. armed forces were beginning to muster near Iraq as massive anti-war protests were flaming up across Europe. The Bush administration, through a startling mix of macho rhetoric, policy failures and simple ham-fisted diplomacy, managed to alienate and insult many of our former allies, squandering the emotional capital we amassed after the 9/11 attacks. In the confusion over where best to fight the terrorist threat and the administration’s willful obfuscation of who our real enemies are, the issue of truly securing and rebuilding Afghanistan became lost in the heated debate over Iraq’s non-existent chemical weapons stockpiles and phantom nuclear capabilities. While the world argued over weapons inspections in Iraq, the Bush administration, as well as the American public, quickly forgot about the tenuous situation in Afghanistan, and as the president fiddled with faulty intelligence, Afghanistan continued to burn. As James Fallows says in his scathing critique […]
Oct 1st, 2004 by Vital Archives
Liberal to Progressive
By John Hughes We live in a time when our country is becoming increasingly conservative, or at least anti-liberal. As I noted in a previous Wayward Son, 40 percent of the citizenry now identify themselves as conservative, versus 19 percent who call themselves liberal. And the reality is so much more than statistical; an acquaintance of mine recently snarled with venom and called me a “tree hugger” when I questioned the legitimacy of the war in Iraq. Have you noticed this sort of militancy in your sphere of associates? In the 40 years since Lyndon Johnson defeated Barry Goldwater in an overwhelming landslide, it has become unthinkable that a liberal could so soundly defeat a conservative. It has become unthinkable and fodder for rage among the Clear Channel populists that one should even identify oneself as “feminist” or “environmentalist” or “pacifist.” The majority of people in our country are not just conservative, but angry at and full of contempt for liberals. Just listen to WTMJ radio if you need an example. Things are not getting better for liberals and their issues these days, but increasingly worse. Conservatives are growing more entrenched in their beliefs as their cultural dominance increases. America apparently will be a bastion of militarism, and of commerce untainted by governmental compassion or collective concern about where the free market might take us environmentally or in terms of equitable opportunity. Millions of people feel completely disenfranchised by this movement, but, frankly, don’t see a compelling and engaging alternative. What do we do about this? I have several suggestions, but will limit this discussion to one potent idea: that we draw a distinction in our thinking between liberal and progressive, and choose the latter. “Liberal” is now a word so tainted among most Americans that I propose we abandon it, as several of America’s leading thinkers once abandoned “anarchist” as a self-descriptive label. That latter word denoted a distinguished and elegant political posture, historically aligned with workers’ rights. But it began to be associated with fanatics like the Unabomber in the public imagination. Realizing that the storied term would be viewed with suspicion and alarm by most people, the grown-ups within the anarchist movement (like poet and eco-activist Gary Snyder) put the word on the back burner. They soft-pedaled it and opted for new language. This was realpolitik. It’s the same with “liberal.” The word connotes, to tens of millions of rank and file Americans, Michael Dukakis, Gary Hart, and Walter Mondale—wimps who love taxes and offer, as the Great American Vision, a network of bureaucrats regulating us from afar. There is an element of truth to the image—classic liberals have sought to have power centralized in the hands of the federal government, as opposed to progressives, who like to see power decentralized and in the hands of grass roots activists around the country. To be fair, liberals were forced into their position. During the civil rights era, Southern states were not going to relinquish […]
Oct 1st, 2004 by Vital Archives
John Jeske is He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Interviewed.
By John Jeske & the Scribe Cleverness, thy sin is Ego! Any writer with even the slightest tendency towards thinking their own ideas are great can fall for this one. The staff of Vital was planning the October issue, when someone threw out the idea of interviewing a Witch for Vital Lives. It didn’t catch on at first, but the seed of a thought had been planted… what if, instead of interviewing a plain old Pagan about a simple Harvest holiday, we spoke with a real Warlock who openly practices Magick? Wouldn’t that be much more interesting? For some reason, this sounded like a good idea at the time. We even instantly concurred on the perfect Warlock. One person said “Who could we talk to?” Immediately, another shot back “John Jeske.” It seemed perfect. I contacted Jeske the next day and we met at the agreed-upon time a few days later. There was only one problem. The man cannot be interviewed. An elder statesman of Milwaukee’s poetry scene and artistic and political undergrounds, Jeske is by turns brilliant, charming, angry, wistful and vaguely disoriented. He read my cards, told me the meaning of my name and examined my palm. If lines don’t lie, I have a long life to look forward to. We had a deeply fascinating conversation. Unfortunately, it wasn’t linear in any sort of narrative way. I tried to pin the man down on facts, but was left with impressions, bits of past-life history, some of the duties and responsibilities of persons of his Order. Not being an expert on the subject, it wasn’t much to go on. And it’s not like the facts are posted anywhere in plain sight. At least not where I could find them in regards to his specific affiliation. When I contacted Jeske again and told him I needed more tangible information, he informed me that he didn’t care to be interviewed, per se, but he would be happy to share some thoughts with me in writing, which he did. So after much wringing of hands, I’m taking the easy way out, just sharing his words as they were shared with me. John writes: Somewhere in this messy, ever-changing world of mine, is a stack of journals, a few feet high, that records all of my magickal adventures. You see, a sorcerer keeps meticulous records of all the fantastic happenings in its life. Without your journals, your magickal career is worth exactly the value of the air you blow over your teeth as you proclaim yourself Magus, master of Magick, minerval, man of earth, king, queen – and why not? I don’t know, sorcerers don’t give or get medals and usually; when too many of them are in one place, there is, well, change. I ask: How did you discover Magick? John replies: When I was 17, my first performance at the Avant Guard [2111 N. Prospect] was watched by a 35 year-old woman who was as powerful as she was beautiful. There […]
Oct 1st, 2004 by Vital Archives
October 2004
Dear Readers, An oft-discussed but little understood theory of Albert Einstein’s is that of length contraction, in which a decrease in length is experienced by objects traveling at a substantial fraction of the speed of light (at least 10� but only in the direction in which the object is traveling. Extended, this theory applies to time itself. Simply stated (and possibly somewhat misstated, so I’ll ask advance forgiveness from mathematicians and physicists here): if something is moving fast enough in a certain direction, it actually moves faster than time. I’ve been thinking about this a lot lately because, like almost everyone I know, I am overwhelmed by how quickly time passes. It truly does feel like the more we’re in motion, the faster time moves. The more we try to do, the more we are faced with decisions we must make that affect both our present and our future, the less time we seem to have to think about what we’re doing. Even though the physics of this phenomenon are beyond my understanding, I can identify with the thought that the faster we move, the faster time does indeed pass. I wish there was a scientific way to physically measure the speed of change as it pertains to both personal and global events and situations. If that were possible, we might find that we are indeed hurtling along at 1/10 the speed of light, the point at which time does indeed start to contract, and things are really happening more and more quickly. The next step would be to see if there was any way at all to slow the world down a bit, to give each of us more time to consider the implications of our decisions and actions. In practical terms, we could more thoroughly evaluate how our two major parties have switched identities in twenty short years. Mysteriously, the Republican party claims banner rights as guardian and gatekeeper of corporate interests and the moral well-being of all Americans, while the Democrats represent balanced budgets, global relations, smaller government and, most interestingly to me, personal choice and autonomy. Does anyone yet remember that the Republican party was founded 150 years ago, right here in Ripon, Wisconsin, by socialists pissed off at ineffectual Democrats and Whigs, both of which had become parties of complacent conservatism, content with the enslavement of blacks and the congenital economic and social structure slavery fostered? Abraham Lincoln was their leader. Trust buster Teddy Roosevelt was a Republican, too. My, how times have changed. And so quickly! Think about that on your way to the polls. Something else to think about this election season is the considerable influence of third parties on our two party political system. When we think about third parties, we think of their most colorful characters – Ross Perot, Jesse Ventura, Ralph Nader. But while no independent party has yet succeeded in gaining legal and financial status that would make it competitive with either the Democrats or the Republicans, some of […]
Oct 1st, 2004 by Jon Anne Willow
Some Sage Advice for John Kerry
By Donald Kaul Let’s face it, fellow liberals: Commander Kerry’s swift boat isn’t looking too swift these days. The shore is lined with people shouting advice to him: “Be tougher! Be more positive! Defend yourself faster! Don’t defend, attack! Don’t talk about so many issues! Broaden your agenda!” Good advice all, but easier to give than to follow. So I thought I’d try my hand at it. I figure if he uses it and it works, I might get a job in the new administration; something that comes with a big office and not many duties will do. Here are just a few things I would tell John Kerry if I had his ear: Do not use the word “nuance.” Don’t use it in a campaign speech, in private conversation or in your sleep. Your Secretary of State can use the word. So can your ambassador to the United Nations. In an emergency, your press secretary can use it (although I wouldn’t recommend it). You cannot. People running for president do not say “nuance” unless, of course, they’re running for president of France. In the first place, a good number of the people you’re trying to get to vote for you don’t know what it means. In the second place, it not only sounds like a French word, it is a French word and, for better or for worse, France is not the favorite country of the American people right now. (Hey, I’m like you, I love the place. Great food, beautiful cities and towns, stylish women. What’s not to like? But you’ve got my vote already, you know? You might try reaching out to those with less sophisticated palates.) Stop saying that you’ll fight a “more sensitive” war against terrorism. It’s okay to be more sensitive, but you don’t want to talk about it. It sounds like you want to get Osama bin Laden on a couch and have him tell you his life story. I know that’s not what you mean, but it leaves you open to that kind of misinterpretation (and, as we know, if the Republicans didn’t have misinterpretation, they wouldn’t have any interpretation at all). You’re not teaching English Lit 101, John. You’re running for president. Act like it. Talk about fighting a “smarter” war on terrorism. Smart is good; smart plays in Peoria. Never say you would still vote to authorize the president to attack Iraq even if you knew then what you know now. Never, ever. Don’t tell me you didn’t really say that. It sounded as though you said it, and that’s good enough for the Electoral College. When you said whatever it was you said, you could hear the air begin to escape the Kerry balloon. You picked a hell of a time to be nuanced on an issue. All those Dean and Kucinich voters who were stirred by the passion of their candidates suddenly became aware that you really weren’t one of them and they sagged. George Bush spends a […]
Oct 1st, 2004 by Vital Archives
