of I Bag W ^ b u l a r Staff 1 V r o m * u u t ^ e top I , nut through v e n t s o i d Glory ’ /Sir forced flagstaff keeps l . fA lutte d r e in r g r " a^ ?b b x ^ w i n d o W > a «b J ^ r - d r i v e n i home, s a t r iotic note. u s i n g at the I it adds a a m etal hou u p | blower, e « '1O a Se c ontinuous 1 b a se sw d t u b u l a r s t a f ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ■ through CONTENTS Cover, Speedy & Doughboy, Mark Norseth; Punks, Michael Curry; Thelma, Shannon Mayfield; Design, published free to the public by the Clinton St. Theatre, 2522 SE Clinton, Portland, OR, 97202. © 1981, Clinton St. Quarterly vol. 3. NO. 1 Jim Blashfield Near-Flesh, Katherine D unn ..........8 That Grand Wild Sound of Bop, Lynn Darroch ...........................8 Let’s Play El Salvador! Matt W uerker......................... 12 Smoking Chandu, Marjorie..........14 My Brief Career as an Investigative Reporter, Steve C a h i l l ..............16 Send In The Clown, Florence Souchet..................... 19 Prime Time: Soft to the Core, Joe Uris.....................................23 The Demon: Sports, Lenny Dee.. 26 The Old Folks, Walt Curtis...........29 Postcards, Musicmaster................. 35 Drivin’ My Life Away, Larry A dam s ...........................36 Surf Punks Gone Wacko, Craig Lee with Janet Duckworth ............................... 40 Meanwhile in Portland, E.B. Belew ............................. 45 The Clinton Street Quarterly is Soring 1981 STAFF Co-Editors Jim Blashfield, Lenny Dee, Peggy Lindquist, David Milholland Design and Production Jim Blashfield, Eric Edwards Ad Production Peggy Lindquist, Stan Sitnick, Leslie Tose Ad Sales Danny Chericone, Lenny Dee, Kathy Milholland, Randy Shutt, Pat Sumich Proof Readers Steve Cackley, Walt Curtis, David Milholland Photos Eric Edwards, M. Hirsch Contributing Artists Steve Blackburn, Michael Curry, Shannon Mayfield, Musicmaster, Mark Norseth, Steve Sandstrom, Steve Winkenwerder Typesetting John Blank, Deborah Hirsch, Publisher’s Friend Thanks — Archetype Camera Work Publisher’s Friend Advertisers call: 222-6039 STRACHAN FOR CITY COUNCIL; CAWTHORNE, NEWHALL. AHO BAUMAN FOR SCHOOL BOARD W HEN election day rolls around we usually head straight for our favorite watering hole and try to wash away the bitter taste left from choosing the lesser of two evils. So it is a delight to report that on March 31, Portlanders will have an opportunity to vote for quality candidates—Margaret Strachan, Sarah Newhall, Herb Cawthorne and Rick Bauman. Rarely has a city council candidate attracted such diverse and enthusiastic support as Margaret Strachan. From neighborhood leaders to car park attendants, Strachan is garnering the backing necessary to address the difficult challenges that lie ahead. F OR many years the powers-that-be allowed the Portland school system to maintain a mediocre and racially imbalanced program while failing to recognize the coming financial crunch. With the appointments of Herb Cawthorne and Sarah Newhall, the leadership of our schools took a fresh turn. For the first time in the city’s history the board was dominated by a group that did not represent the Portland legal and business establishment. This meant that children of all races and classes had a shot at better educational opportunities. Now the corporate business community, arrogantly calling itself the “Committee for Good School Board Candidates,” is advancing people to run agains Sarah Newhall and for retiring Wally Priestley’s seat in hopes of regaining their influence. To meet this challenge and maintain community control of our schools, we urge you to vote to retain Sarah Newhall and Herb Cawthorne, and to add our outstanding State Representative, Rick Bauman, to the Board as well. EDITORIAL R ONALD REAGAN’S political positions have always been marked by simplistic slogans and catchy homilies. Now the new administration’s effort to turn back almost fifty years of social welfare legislation under the rubric of budget balancing has been accompanied by another skillful turn of phrase—The “ truly needy,” we are told, will not be harmed. The concept of the “ truly needy” has both a deceptive simplicity and a careful ambiguity. It is designed to assure us that the government will continue to extend our collective social generosity to those who are genuinely in need. At the same time, it suggests a new threshold test for assistance: it is no longer enough to be simply needy; recipients must be particularly needy. These are hard times and all of us—particularly the poor—must tighten our belts in the noble struggle to balance the federal budget. Despite the fact that we are experiencing what Reagan describes as the worst economic mess since the great depression, the number of people eligible for aid will be reduced (as will the amount of assistance received). Who are these “ truly needy” recipients of governmental largesse? You might suppose that they represent the poorest segment of our society; but you would be missing the real point of the neo-conservative view of the welfare system. Need may be a prerequisite of assistance, but it is not the crucial measure. Aid is to be provided only to the worthy poor, deserving objects of charity who are unable to work and poor through no fault of their own: the halt, the blind and the lame. The worthy poor used to include widows and orphans as well, but the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program is now seen as overpopulated with single women and illegitimate children. This group will no longer be counted among the truly needy. The administration will attempt to restrict this category of assistance and subject its recipients to stringent work requirements. WHILE this moralistic position provides a convenient rationalization as well as an easy target for the frustrations of an increasingly disenchanted middle class faced with a shrinking economic pie, it is not a real explanation of the administration’s welfare policies. The underlying dynamic of the welfare system serves to assure that an adequate pool of low-wage workers remains available for an economy which considers labor simply another cost of doing business. Providing adequate subsistence benefits to all in need would have an unacceptable inflationary effect on the lowest wages in our society. So it becomes important for welfare benefits to be selectively available, economically inadequate, and difficult and unpleasant to obtain. Welfare policy can be seen as a balancing act in response to economic conditions: benefits must be more available when thought necessary to forestall civil unrest, but they should not be so available as to interfere with the free market availability of low-wage labor. The most galling feature of the cuts is the mock fiscal piety which accompanies the budget cutting process. As usual, the real issue is whose ox is being gored. It is impossible to maintain the illusion of fiscal sanity while we stuff additional billions of dollars down the throat of an already bloated military establishment and continue to extend governmental gratuities to the not-so-poor segments of our society in the form of tax credits, grants, incentives, subsidies and the like. Whatever its form or rationale, welfare for the rich is still welfare. ■ 3
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NTc4NTAz