LEAD STORY Voices

Let's be honest. As much as we in the newspaper business talk about opening up our pages to readers, we don't do it a whole lot. We decide what stories to cover. We choose whom to talk to. Then we get to pick which of their comments, if any, to include. With that in mind, each year at this time Willamette Week publishes the "Voices" issue--an attempt to turn over some of our real estate to a few interesting Portlanders and let them, in their own words, share a bit of their lives with you. In the process of talking to the three folks we chose, we found that they have something in common: a belief that words are powerful tools. We first talked to the Rev. Roy Cole, who argues that nothing in the Good Book precludes gays and lesbians from being good Christians. We next talked to independent-publishing advocate Chloe Eudaly, who this year found her own store, Reading Frenzy, in the news. Finally, we sat down with jock-turned-author Larry Colton, who is helping Portland teachers get kids excited about writing. We also included a transcript of an internal e-mail debate over the fate of the presidency between WW staffers who normally don't get their names in print. We hope you come away from this issue with new insights into this great city--and a renewed appreciation for the power of words. Roy Cole When Roy Cole came out of the closet, he assumed his preaching days were over. Instead, he's found a home at Portland's Metropolitan Community Church. BY PATTY WENTZ Roy Cole knew he wanted to be a pastor from the time he was 18 years old. Driven by the desire to share his belief in a loving God, he studied theology, graduating from Southeast Portland's Warner Pacific College in 1984. He lived cleanly, studied hard, did what he was told and became pastor of the First Church of God in Reno, Nev. He had, however, one big problem. Cole is gay. Like most gay Christians, Cole struggled with his sexuality as if it were a black spot on his soul that could be exorcised with faith and prayer. When he finally accepted his sexual orientation, he was booted from the pulpit. Unlike many other gay Christians, however, Cole didn't completely lose faith. Rather, he found one that made sense to him: Metropolitan Community Church. After running the MCC in Reno for several years, today Cole, 42, is pastor of MCC in Portland. The 30-year-old denomination has 300 churches in 16 countries, a membership of 40,000 and a $20 million Cathedral of Hope in Dallas, Texas. Its ministry focuses on gay men, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered people. When author Andrew Sullivan spoke with us last month, he described it as the fastest growing homosexual organization in the country. The Portland church, on Northeast Broadway, has more than 200 members. Two weeks ago Cole--like every other Christian pastor overloaded with seasonal chores--was trying to get some time away from his flock to sneak in some Christmas shopping. Still, he agreed to meet with us in his North Portland home. During a two-hour interview Cole displayed warmth, deep empathy, theological expertise and firm conviction as he explained how it's possible that God might not give a damn who we sleep with. Willamette Week: You knew you were gay when you graduated from college. How did you think you were going to reconcile your homosexuality with the ministry? Roy Cole: I guess at that time I was still hoping that a change would come. I thought I just hadn't found the magic key that would make that happen. I was hating myself for the sexual attraction I felt for my best friends. Did they ever know that? No, we were all good Christians. Was it hard to keep up the facade? No, in fact, in one sense being a conservative Christian and being gay made dating girls easy, because premarital sex is not acceptable. Girls would say to me, "I dated other Christian boys and they're good for the first three or four dates, and then after that they're all over me. But you never do any of that--you're so spiritual." [And I'd think,] "Yes, because I want to do it with this fellow over there, not with you." So anyway, it was a wonderful cover. But it wasn't a cover. I was celibate until I was 31 because I was so deathly afraid of what would happen in my life if I transgressed. Like a lightning-bolt type thing? Yes. I had it all figured out. If I transgressed and had sex with a man, I would get in a horrible automobile accident and end up a quadriplegic with burns on my hands. God would do this as a salvation on my soul, and I would never again be tempted. That was the fear that kept me from exploring human sexuality in a physical way. You described your religious background as "conservative Christian." In what denomination were you raised? Well, a few actually. I was raised in foster homes, so I had kind of a gamut of church experiences. I had everything from being baptized Roman Catholic to being raised Seventh-day Adventist. When I was 18 I got involved in a conservative Baptist Church, and from there I went on to the Church of God. So I kept going to very conservative churches where homosexuality was not acceptable. What were your beliefs? I believed that doctrine was correct and homosexuality was a sin, and I prayed very, very diligently and faithfully to try and change my attraction to men. I was engaged twice and lived as a celibate man until I was 31. When did you accept your sexual orientation? I came out at the age of 31, when I was a pastor of the First Church of God in Union, Nev. I informed [the church leaders] that I was gay. Later, after a lot of prayer and some wonderful counsel by an Episcopalian priest who was also a psychotherapist, I learned I could retain my spirituality; I could retain my Christian faith, and I could also embrace my sexual orientation. How did the church leaders react? Well, I offered them my resignation. When I made my announcement, they accepted my resignation. I wasn't allowed in the church. Because you were gay? Because I was gay. But there are churches where gays and lesbians are accepted. Oh, most certainly, and we have some people in our fellowship that have dual church membership. A lot of people that go to an Episcopalian early service then come over to MCC Portland for the later service. Same thing in Baptist churches and Catholic churches. That seems to raise the question: Why do you need MCC? I think what attracts people to MCC is it is one of the few opportunities you have as a gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgendered Christian person to be in the majority, to be in an environment where you are not the oddity, where everyone else is like you. There's real power in that. That's why we have ethnic churches. African-American and Hispanic churches create a culture, and while the gay and lesbian community doesn't necessarily have a definable culture, there is a power in being in a room with 200 or 300 people who are just like you. We're not doing anything wondrously unique except we are saying, "When it comes to gender identity and sexual orientation, that is a non-issue." What percentage of your congregation is straight? Probably about 5 percent. What attracts straight people to MCC? We just had a straight couple become members, and I asked them that. They were attracted to MCC for a couple of reasons. One is they liked the fact that MCC was doing something positive in the community. They really wanted to be a part of a church that had a social agenda. The other thing that attracted them is they wanted a church where they were not required to subscribe to a certain theological position, where they could move into a spiritual community that was Christ-centered but that gave them great latitude to explore their own spiritual faith and their own vocabulary for that faith. How does MCC handle adultery? Well, we encourage people not to commit adultery. Adultery is defined as having a created relationship with another person and then moving outside of that covenant to have sex with a third person. If this is a monogamous relationship, then that is what the two of you vow. But if you're having an open relationship or moving towards an open relationship, let's not vow something that you don't intend to keep. That's a little easier in the gay and lesbian community, or at least in the gay male community, than it is the straight community. But I'm very upfront with that. If a couple comes in and says, "It is not in our world view to remain monogamous, but we want to commit our life together and share our life together," then who am I to say, "It doesn't rise to the level to be blessed by the church and blessed by God"? If not monogamy, do you have any criteria people must meet before you will sanction a relationship? Yes. I have declined to perform some ceremonies. If I see within the relationship a great potential for emotional or physical violence, I won't lead it in that direction. The same goes if I see a great inequality within the relationship that hasn't been addressed. I've declined to marry couples that are rushing too quickly into this. I often counsel that they wait for a while. If they're asking me to officiate, then I do have a responsibility to set some standards around that. How do you explain the familiar biblical passages that are used to condemn gay men and lesbians? How is that interpreted in your church? The short answer is that those passages are misinterpreted. It's often quoted in Leviticus that a man shall not lie with a man as one does with a woman. When I'm in an ornery mood I say, "Well, it doesn't say anything about a woman lying with a woman, so all of the lesbians in the world are off the hook." Or I'll ask, "Could you please tell me what other laws in the book of Leviticus are you following in your life? Do you eat shellfish?" This passage was written 3,000 years ago, when the most important thing was procreation. That is certainly not a value that God instituted as being for all times and all places. If you want to take a random verse out of the Bible, you can prove any case that you want to prove. I remind people that very well-intentioned Christians have had good Biblical bases for believing things that were wrong. The best example is the Southern Baptist church, which was founded on the biblical belief that owning slaves was biblical, that this was God-ordained. There's a New Testament passage that says slaves should not seek to be free from their masters. When people come to you thinking of joining the church, do they bring up these passages? It is the question that is asked and asked, and asked again. When people call and make an appointment, there's always the issue of "This is who I am, and the Bible says it's wrong; help me understand it." The MCC churches are cosponsoring the Millennium March in Washington, D.C., in the year 2000. What's the goal of the march? To try to enact some sort of legislation regarding nondiscrimination for employment, housing and public accommodation. In addition, the march will again challenge President Clinton's "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Do you think the church is replacing traditional gay political organizations such as ACT UP? I think the political climate has shifted, but I don't believe the church is replacing these groups. We're cosponsoring the Millennium March with the Human Rights Coalition, the largest political organization in the county. That indicates the long tradition our organization has had in civil rights. Has there been a backlash against MCC from more radical gay and lesbian groups? Not at all. We have a great working relationship with every gay and lesbian organization in Oregon. I think politically the gay and lesbian community is becoming a bit less reactionary in how it approaches the political process. While I value the work ACT UP has done nationally, the confrontational strategy has changed. Our leaders are seeking to work more proactively with legislators in a way where appropriate information is communicated rather than accusations and diatribes. Is it appropriate for MCC to be bringing a religious message into the political realm? Isn't that what we hate about the Christian right? If we present a message in the context of the church--the integrity and worth of each human being--that's not just a religious message; it's a political message. You can't talk about the value of human life and the integrity of each human being if you don't recognize that the political structure needs to change to support that reality. It's appropriate to bring human values into the political realm, and it's my hope as a Christian minister that the values of each human life and each human relationship, regardless of orientation and gender identity, can be respected. It's at those two points where we diverge with the radical religious right. As I understand it, MCC isn't a member of Ecumenical Ministries of Oregon. Why not? In '92 or '93, when Rodney Page was the director, it was very clearly indicated that if MCC put its application on the table, it would probably split up EMO. If we were accepted into EMO, the Baptist, Orthodox and Catholic contingents would pull out. If we were not accepted into EMO, there was talk that some of the more liberal and progressive churches would pull out. Because EMO was doing some incredible things for the gay and lesbian community, I didn't want to do that. What do fundamentalists think of MCC? We've had people from very conservative fundamental churches come check us out. Which ones? They don't declare who they are, but you kind of know who they are because they come in and there's this certain look to them. Their Bible is very big, and they usually have a note pad. Usually the guys are dressed in suits and the women are wearing dresses, and women in dresses are really rare at MCC. They sit in the back, and you just know from their body language that they are just here to get the scoop on us. And what do they find? One thing we're often accused of is that we're just playing at church. It's a counterfeit church; it's not an authentic church. It's filled with these people who are an abomination in God's sight. The thing that I have appreciated, when people like that come and check us out, is they walk out amazed that church actually happened. What does it do to a person to grow up feeling they are banned, basically, in the eyes of the God they believe in? I believe it can destroy them. It has destroyed thousands of people. One of the most wretched experiences I had was when I first came to MCC. It was 1989, when AIDS was rampant, and I would be called, time and time again, to the bedside of someone dying, and I would hear, time and time again, this person telling me, "I am going to Hell. AIDS is God's judgment. My family was right. I'm a sinner. I am condemned." I would just be appalled at the damage, at what had been done in the name of God. It is horribly, horribly damaging to an individual to grow up with that message, that you are an abomination, that you are not even worth God's attention, that your state will be eternal damnation. It leads people into massive alcohol and substance abuse. It leads them into high-risk sexual behavior; they say to me, "Why shouldn't I just get what I can? Hell looms before me. This is my only shot of happiness; if it takes drugs and alcohol and irresponsible sex, that's what I'm going to do." I've seen that played out time and time again. It says in MCC literature: "Jesus never mentioned or condemned romantic love or sexual relationships between people of the same sex. Yet Jesus taught frequently about love between people of the same sex." Are you trying to say that Jesus is gay? A lot of people want us to say that, and some people have published books that say that. It's not a new thought. He didn't have a girlfriend, and he traveled around with 12 other guys. There have been lots of people who have wanted to make that connection. I don't think we will ever know, but what we do see, and what that pamphlet is referring to, is that in the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, we see Jesus getting into intimate relationships--not sexual, but intimate, emotional connections--with people of the opposite and people of the same gender. In Portland, most homosexual organizations are dominated by women. Yet you say your membership is two-thirds men. Why is that? Most of our MCC churches have a larger male population. One possible reason is that gay men, by the very nature of who they are, tend to have a greater affinity to things spiritual than heterosexual men. This might be it: They have more permission to explore their spirituality than hetero men. The second piece is that women are brought up in a church culture where all the leaders are men. They must obey their husbands; their role is to have children and support the family. Lesbian women think, "Why would you want to move back into a church structure where you're going to feel like a second-class citizen again?" How much is sexuality or homosexuality a part of the liturgy? Is that something you talk about a lot? It will come through because every Sunday there is somebody there for the first time who wants to know, "Can I be gay and Christian?" They need to hear something that connects. But I also have a congregation of 200 other members who have made the journey, for the most part, beyond "It's OK to be gay and Christian." They don't really need to have that lesson preached to them every week. Then we have the straight people who come. So it is kind of a delicate balance for the liturgy of each service. It's very fun for me, as well. Gay and lesbian parishioners will say, "Oh pastor, I think you were a little too gay this Sunday. You want the straight people feeling like they're not welcome?" Do you really want more heterosexuals to come? Wouldn't it be nice to have a church where you wouldn't have to deal with heteros? It would be my hope that in my lifetime MCC would be a church of people, where there are no labels--gay, straight, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered. I don't know if it's possible. Can we be blind to gender identity and sexual orientation? I don't know, but I would hope that someday we could. I hope that I can move us in that direction and not become so rigidly gay that all we're known as is "that gay church over there." Do you feel a responsibility to be a role model? Geez, I'd hate to be a role model. People can discover within themselves all of what they need to be and what makes them the wonderful, unique individuals that they are. They don't need to model themselves after me--I've got my own neuroses and issues and insecurities and vanities and egos and all that stuff. I don't need to be a role model. How does that line [in the movie As Good As It Gets] go--where Jack Nicholson is saying to Helen Hunt, "When I'm with you I just want to be a better person"? That's how we should all be in our interactions. I'm hoping that by who I am as a person and by what we do as a church, it helps others become a better human beings in this human family. No, I don't want to be a role model. I want to be a voice. When people call our church, there's always the issue of "This is who I am, and the Bible says it's wrong; help me understand it." Chloe Eudaly Reading Frenzy's Chloe Eudaly says freedom of the press shouldn't be restricted to those who own one. She has more than 1,000 titles to make her case. BY CHRIS LYDGATE Anarchists. Dishwashers. Strippers. Human guinea pigs. When it comes to listening to voices, Chloe Eudaly is an expert. Eudaly has been at the vanguard of the 'zine scene since 1994, when she opened Reading Frenzy--Portland's premier independent-press emporium, dedicated to the creation and dissemination of self-published and nonmainstream media. With a dizzying array of more than 1,000 'zines (such as Stay Free, The Baffler, Comet Bus, Bust and Craphound), magazines, comics and books, Eudaly's quirky little shop on Southwest Oak Street has become a key outpost of 'zine culture, attracting attention from national publications from the Wall Street Journal to Spin magazine. Reading Frenzy was also the subject of local controversy in 1998. First, its very existence was threatened when next-door neighbor Taco Del Mar wanted to expand into Eudaly's leased space. More recently, The New Yorker published an article about a bootlegged collection of J. D. Salinger short stories that sat on Reading Frenzy's shelves for a few weeks last summer. A passionate champion of the First Amendment, Eudaly has organized lectures, readings and exhibits featuring local writers and artists such as cartoonist Joe Sacco, redneck apologist Jim Goad and sex-worker advocate Teresa Dolce. Besides running the store, the 28-year-old entrepreneur is now starting up the Independent Publishers Resource Center, where 'zine neophytes can learn how to self-publish and get access to the tools of the trade. Willamette Week: Did you ever have your own 'zine? Chloe Eudaly: No. Never. I contributed to a few locally published ones like Art Rag and others. I had worked in a couple of local bookstores and developed a strong interest in independent media, and I felt this huge gap in representation locally. There was no bookstore that specialized in that. What drew you to that particular corner of publishing? Frustration and boredom with mainstream media, for one. Independent media is really inaccessible to the majority of the people in this country. I did a couple of workshops at Lincoln High School, helping [the students] learn how to publish their own projects and produce their own 'zines, giving them a little history and background, and showing them examples of what I'm talking about. The kids were like, "You mean, people just write down their own thoughts and feelings and publish it?" You say you were bored with the mass media. What is it that frustrates you, and what is it in independent media that appeals to you? I guess the more diverse range of voices, subcultures. One of the biggest problems I have with conventional journalism is that you've got a bunch of people writing about issues or phenomena that they know nothing about. They have no connection to it. I'm not interested in that kind of outsider's perspective. That's been part of my frustration with being interviewed. Not only do I have to make sense to the reader, but I have to make sense to the writer and the editor. Often the final product is confusing to me. I imagine that the reader who has no prior knowledge or no context says, "What?" What, in your opinion, makes a good 'zine? Number one: Legibility. (Laughs.) Then it's a little bit of a paradox for me in that on the one hand, I think that just about any form of self-expression is a positive thing. I would never discourage anyone from pursuing that. And on the other hand... I still get the roughest, cut-and-paste, photocopied-on-one-side-of-the-page, stapled-together-like-a-book-report 'zines. But I think people are paying more attention to graphic design and layout, and the tools are a lot more accessible if you're using a computer. Are there other trends in 'zines that you've seen? It seems like there is a proliferation of occupation-specific or lifestyle-specific titles with incredibly narrow themes, which I really like because I think you tend to get better writing and more depth than in a general interest publication. Any notable examples? I guess the best example of that would be Dishwasher, written by this fellow whose goal is to wash dishes in all 50 states. That's primarily what his 'zine is about, but it's also about labor history and workers' rights. He happens to be an exceptionally good writer. We had a 'zine called Removal Technician, by these two young kids whose job was to go to people's homes to remove dead bodies and bring them to a funeral home. There's also Guinea Pig Zero, by a guy who's a professional human guinea pig--he gets paid to get medical experiments done on him. What's in the store? I carry well into 1,000 titles. Most of them are hand-picked. It's not just weird marginalia literature, and it's not just serious politics. The scope is as wide as the media, but I try to represent that scope as well as I can. Regardless of quality, it's really rare that we wouldn't sell at least a couple of copies of each title. You had your own brush with fame this fall. The New Yorker reported about a collection of Salinger stories you sold. Tell me about that. This summer someone brought me a stack of books to sell on consignment at the store, and to be honest about it, I was really excited. I felt like the intentions of the publisher were honorable. It definitely wasn't a profit-making venture. It was an attempt to make these really hard-to-find Salinger stories more readily accessible. So the stories had been previously published? Yes, the 22 stories had been published in various magazines between the mid-'40s and the late '60s. Salinger has never allowed any of them to be collected in book form; I don't know why he chose the stories he did allow to be published. So these other stories exist, and you can find them, but it would be a pretty time-consuming process. After we'd sold copies of the book I was made aware of my legal liability, and I decided to stop carrying it. Copies were on the shelves briefly. Can you tell me how many you sold? In the 20s. The other big news for you last year was the well-publicized battle with your landlord over a new lease. When we last left off, Taco Del Mar was still wanting to expand into your space. Did the story have a happy ending? Ultimately we settled on terms, and we're going to be here for the next three to six years. I definitely don't think this would have happened without media coverage and without hundreds of people who voiced their opinions about Taco Del Mar, either in writing or just by not supporting that business. Taco Del Mar has a good reputation in Seattle as being a progressive company. I think this contributed to the [decision not to expand]. The company said it wanted to do the right thing. So the moral of the story is...? The moral of the story is that contrary to popular belief, the public does have some kind of power. I think this is a really rare occurrence, though. If I had been almost any other kind of business, I don't think I would have gotten the kind of support that I've gotten. A lot of people took it as a direct threat to their community. When we moved onto that block, there was virtually nothing going on, and then all these people came. There's really a thriving community of businesses there now. We don't have the resources to just pick up and leave. You're also involved in the Independent Publishers Resource Center. What's that? The Resource Center is a place where you can come to get training or go to a workshop on just about any aspect of publishing and have access to all the necessary resources. You could walk in with raw data on a page, sit down at a computer, enter it in, learn something about typesetting, learn something about graphic design, learn how to scan and print it out. Ultimately we'll have our own press, but that's a long way off. Right now it's basically pre-press, and the emphasis is more on the technical aspects than the creative aspects. A lot of people who have important things to say don't have the skills or resources to put them down on paper in a legible, really appealing way. Is this another way of breaking down barriers? Because I could argue that in mainstream publishing there are editors who have strange opinions, and you have to become occupied with the question of money and overcome technical problems. But to deal with all that you have to have some real motivation. What if I said all those barriers are good, because they help sort the wheat from the chaff? I agree to a certain extent. That's what I was getting at when I said that there's an inherent paradox: I think creative self-expression is a completely vital, fundamental part of being a whole person, and I wouldn't want to discourage anyone from doing that in any way. But I would like to inspire and encourage people to put more time, effort and thought into what they're doing. At the very least I'd like to give them the skills and resources to make their work presentable. But, to be honest, I don't think the ratio of wheat to chaff in the mainstream media world is any better than in the independent world. "The moral of the story is that contrary to popular belief, the public does have some kind of power." Larry Colton Larry Colton thought his arm would lead him to Cooperstown. Instead, his passion for writing has lead him to a place in the hearts of Portland teachers. BY NIGEL JAQUISS For the first two decades of his life, Larry Colton lived the American dream. After growing up in the post-war boom town of Los Angeles, he rode a strong right arm to a baseball scholarship at the University of California at Berkeley. Although Berkeley in the early 1960s was engulfed in anti-war and civil rights demonstrations, Colton barely noticed. He signed with the Philadelpia Phillies after graduation. In his first major-league appearance, he shut down a powerful Cincinnati Reds lineup that included six all-stars. Before his next scheduled appearance, he destroyed his pitching shoulder in a bar fight. His career was over. Colton landed in Portland in 1970, broke and divorced. He began teaching and started to write (and, for a while, was a regular contributor to WW). After years of scratching out a living, he scored a big success in 1993 with Goat Brothers (Doubleday), an account of his own life and the lives of four of his fraternity brothers. Two years ago, Colton established the Community of Writers, a project that provides writing training to Portland Public Schools teachers and brings writers into classrooms. Now 56, Colton rises at 5 am every morning to work on his current book--a tale of women's basketball on a Native-American reservation--then spends time administering COW and requesting money from the corporations and foundations that fund the program. Willamette Week: You've done three things that are pretty different from one another: You pitched in the major leagues, you've written an acclaimed book, and you've been instrumental in setting up a writing program in the Portland schools. Which are you most proud of? Larry Colton: I walked into a party the other night and was introduced as "He was a pitcher in the big leagues." I don't think of myself that way. Because when people say, "When did you play in the big leagues?" I say, "It was a Tuesday." Do you have regrets about that? I was so close to something that was a dream, not only to me but to tons of guys out there. I had it, and I could have done something with it, and through my own stupidity and lack of discipline I blew it. I'd like to be able to go back and do something different. On the other hand, I would have ended up a Sam Malone. I would have had my little bar somewhere and talked about the time I struck out Vada Pinson. There's a great line in Field of Dreams. The Kevin Costner character tracks down Moonlight Graham, who played in one big league game, and said, "Don't you feel bad to have been that close, to have smelled the grass? You touched the stardom. You were right there." Moonlight is a doctor now, and he says, "Son, the bigger tragedy is if I would have only been a doctor for one day." And that is how I feel about my writing career. I'm proud of my baseball career, but that just happened because I was born with a good arm. I happened to be gifted. So, to get back to your question, I'm more proud of my work as a teacher and as a writer, because that was using my brain. Were people surprised at your writing career? Oh yeah. I think when I was interviewing the guys in Goat Brothers, because they knew me as a beer-swilling jock, they didn't think that I was going to be able to write a book. Maybe a few had read some stuff I wrote in Sports Illustrated, but I think they were surprised, because that is not who I was in college. No one ever came to me to take a test for them. So I think it was a shock. Even my father, when the book came out, called me up and said, "How did you possibly learn all those words?" How did you learn to write? I learned to write by teaching. I thought all of the textbooks were terrible, so I would write my own assignments. And I would stay up until 1 am and write stories about the kids. In your book, you mention that after your baseball career, you had some rough times. There were times when you were nearly homeless. For a while, if you would come to Larry's house, you would have to bring your own firewood. How does a guy who's down to his last dime get to know [COW supporters] Arlene Schnitzer, Gerry Pratt and Scott Thomason? I got to know those people because I wrote an article about Arlene. It was very positive. I think she's one of the most incredible people I've ever met. The work she does for this community is unbelievable. People don't understand how generous she really is. What kind of writers do you recruit for your program? A person doesn't have to have written a best seller. It's the ability to work with kids and know how to go in and get kids excited. Because I've been a teacher and have classroom experience, I sort of have an understanding of it. Some of the people are ex-teachers, some are poets, some are artists. We have actors who go and get kids to write mini plays. We have somebody in there right now from OPB who's having some kids storyboard stuff. Paul Linnman is coming next month--the kids are going to do a newscast. So it's not just a bunch of poets or journalists. I want writers from Wieden & Kennedy or cook-book writers. Have you had any opposition from teachers? We're working with teachers who have selected to come into this program. So far we've worked with 50 teachers around the district. The teachers themselves are like cheerleaders out there. It helps cut down the isolation of teaching. It makes them feel like part of a larger network, so they feel like there's somebody out there that cares about what they're doing, that supports them. We're offering training that Measure 5 cut off. This should all be paid for, not by the Schnitzers of the world, but by the Legislature. Have you talked with the administration about having the district fund this? Yes, I have, because I can't keep this up. I've never been a fund raiser. You're talking to a guy that lived off free-lancing for Willamette Week for a couple of years. I'm not a money person. But because I've been in the classroom, I know we're making an impact. I also know we're making an impact because we were evaluated by outside resources, and in every single classroom the scores of the kids went up, every single one of them. Yet I've heard there's some opposition to the program. The opposition of the district, though they don't really oppose it, is because of budget constraints. They're thankful, but I don't have an advocate within the district. I went to Ben Canada and said that eventually I don't want to run it. I want to go back to my writing career. I'll probably let someone take over after this year. What did Canada say when you went to him? It took me a month to get a meeting with him, but when I finally got there he said to me, "This is very impressive, I like what I hear." He said that he's just feeling his way around now, and he doesn't know what his budget is going to be for next year. So I'm trying to get into the budget process where I can make my presentations with my charts and say, "We're making an effect. This is not some dream; this is a group of teachers and the community working together to improve writing skills." A couple of months ago we had a lot of candidates in our office for endorsement interviews. Class size seems to be the hot education topic this year. What are your thoughts? If I had heard one more person running for office say we need to cut class size, I was gonna throw up. Cut class size, yes, cut it in half. But cutting one or two [students] per classroom--in my opinion, that's not going to do any good. I think the only way that public education can really survive is to reach out for community support. What do you mean? Diana Snowden stated when she left here how insulated they all are. There's no sharing of best practices, and there's no belief that anyone from outside could actually do something. They don't know who to turn to in the community as a resource. We're doing this with writing, but you can do it with history, math, P.E. For instance, I couldn't coach because I'm not a certified teacher, but I played in the major leagues. You have people that are really skilled that the district should be embracing and bringing in. But everybody's got their turf, their territory. These are well meaning people, they're not mean-spirited people, but they haven't shown the system how to embrace the community. You started teaching in '71. How have students changed since then? The writing skill level wasn't very good then, and it's worse now. When you look at the papers, the kids in high school throw punctuation at the page like a drunken sailor [throwing darts] at a dart board. And the kids' attention spans are shorter. You have to be a showman to keep their attention. You have to have a schtick, because they will tune you out in nothing flat. What do you think is causing those changes? There is just no support at home for education. Parents will pay lip service and say, "Yeah, you've got to get a good education." But in those homes, there are no books. The TV is the baby sitter. There's no academic stimulation. Even in my narrow education I was surrounded by books. I wasn't a prolific reader, but I was exposed to that. Without having visited kids' homes, how can you be sure what kind of support they get? The schools that work are the schools where the parents are involved. Part of our thing is community outreach, where we try to bring parents into the classroom. We go anywhere from North Portland to Ainsworth, and sad as it is, the more affluent and richer the school is, the more the parents are involved. This is a high-tech society. A lot of people make their livings sitting in front of computer screens--but they're not cranking out paragraphs, essays or articles. Why is writing important to those people? I think it's more important because of the computer. There seems to be more opportunity to write, maybe not books or magazines or fancy columns, but inter-office communication, through the computer. You're exposed as a bad writer quicker because of that. For example, I received an e-mail two days ago from a teacher in this school district. There were probably six sentences in the paragraph, and there were no periods. It was just one continuous run-on sentence. I was shocked. How can this person be teaching writing? This person is in the classroom every single day, and there were no periods. "We're offering training that Measure 5 cut off. This should all be paid for, not by the Schnitzers of the world, but by the Legislature.""Kids in high school throw punctuation at the page like a drunken sailor [throwing darts] at a dart board." Clinton Theater Think there's nothing left to say about the impeachment? Then try eavesdropping on our unfiltered, no-holds-barred internal e-mail debate. This year's final "voice" is actually a collection of many voices: those of nine WW staffers who, during a two-day period, traded heated e-mail messages in a shared folder about the possible impeachment of President Clinton. Although the discussion was intended only for internal consumption, we decided to share the postings with readers. In our view, the comments of our staff members (only one of whom, John Graham, is an editorial employee) reflect the type of outrage and unfiltered debate--shaped by conviction rather than partisanship--often lacking in the mainstream media's coverage.SUNDAY DEC. 20, 1998 10:43:48 AM FROM: PATRICK BAILEY In the '50s, and even later, there was a policy in Oregon that the welfare caseworkers would "visit" welfare recipients in the early hours. Sometimes welfare mothers would hear a pounding on the door at 6 am. If a male, not part of the household, was present, benefits could be cut off. Now, we have a president who has been "visited" by events and his presidential powers are being "re-evaluated." I say this is a good thing. Clinton saw fit to "reform" welfare. I say, let's "reform" the presidency. Let's have some standards for the presidency. If the president is not living up to his public's standards, he should be cut off. The days of double standards for rich and poor are over. The stripping of dignity from the poor has been the rule so far. I say strip the dignity from the ignoble rich also. This is progress. I cannot have any more sympathy for Clinton than the government had for those thousands of welfare mothers whose personal "liaisons" caused their families to suffer. MONDAY DEC. 21, 1998 9:06:26 AM FROM: YURI SAGAWA Oh puleeze! This is sooooo not about morals or ethics. It is a power struggle between the old white men on Capitol Hill. It is not about "standards"--every single one of those mofos up there has done the exact same shit as Clinton, if not worse...they just didn't get caught (they all have known for a long time about Clinton's nonsense...he just ran out of favors). So if you say toss Clinton out, I say toss 'em all out. And while we're on the subject, I'm sure that Clinton has done a whole lot worse than sleeping around then lying about it...and by the way, how many people in this company have probably done it?? Hmmm?? Impeachment is supposed to be for crimes tantamount to treason. Would you like to be tried for treason for so innocuous a crime? By so lowering the standard of impeachment, we are yet further lowering the american judicial system. We are yet further lowering the ethics of this country (I didn't think it was possible, but hey, america is so resourceful). And going ahead with impeachment when the majority of the american public doesn't want it to happen--yeah, I live in a democracy, sure. And what the hell is up with bombing Iraq! And then republicans in congress saying that the impeachment is too important to take time to deal with killing people in Iraq!! And then the republican speaker-elect Livingston admits to doing more than what clinton did and also flat out lying about history to make himself look good, yet did you see congress jumping all over him??? Or the media?? This country makes me sick. MONDAY DEC. 21, 1998 9:13:08 AM FROM: PATRICK BAILEY If President Clinton is someone who can inspire you, if he is someone who can rally you to high notions of fairness and justice then I think you are right to come to his defense. Personally, I think he's left a trail of slime from Arkansas that probably will never all come to light, all the while parading as the new JFK. The fact that others in Washington have had affairs and lied about them is no defense for Clinton. He lied to the American public, and his face and the word "truth" don't go together any more. Who can listen to a Clinton speech on ANY TOPIC and have any sense of trust? I want more from a president than his tenacious clinging to power. Even Tricky Dick knew that there was a limit to his lying. MONDAY DEC. 21, 1998 9:25:04 AM FROM: BRIAN PANGANIBAN Brain...hurting (veins and such pulsing scanner-like). Is there no end to this? Rational thought and discussion concerning this issue left months ago. Regardless of how we feel about Clinton, what is happening right now is the most public and blatant example of partisan politics I've ever seen. Do you honestly think any one of those (insert appropriate expletive) are really looking out for your best interest here? Ahh, forget it. Perhaps this is a good thing. With everything going right to Hell up in DC maybe people will wake up and realize just how screwed up everything is, and we can begin again. In order to rebuild, ya gotta tear down. (Think about that next time you want me to fix your computer. Oh, I'm kidding!) MONDAY DEC. 21, 1998 9:46:43 AM FROM: VALARIE SMITH "We are losing sight of the distinction between sins, which ought to be between a person and his family and his God, and crimes, which are the concern of the state and society as a whole."--Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-NY MONDAY DEC. 21, 1998 10:05:30 AM FROM: MELINDA CRAWFORD Actually, I think Valarie's post was most appropriate. The way I judge this president is on the programs he supports, the appointments he makes, etc. Personally, he didn't "lie" to me about anything, because I never asked the question. Never would, never cared. MONDAY DEC. 21, 1998 10:12:50 AM FROM: YURI SAGAWA Patrick Bailey writes: "If President Clinton is someone who can inspire you, if he is someone who can rally you to high notions of fairness and justice then I think you are right to come to his defense." Puleeze. I am NOT defending Clinton. This whole impeachment thing is not about Clinton. Patrick Bailey writes: "Personally I think he's left a trail of slime from Arkansas that probably will never all come to light, all the while parading as the new JFK." Completely agree. (but show me a politician who hasn't) Patrick Bailey writes: "The fact that others in Washington have had affairs and lied about them is no defense of Clinton." It is no defense ethically. He is a slimy unethical son of an asshole, true. However, that is NOT grounds for impeachment. He did not commit treason nor a comparable crime. Patrick Bailey writes: "He lied to the American public," (what politician fucking doesn't?!?!?!? This is a meaningless buzzword), "and his face and the word 'truth' don't go together any more. Who can listen to a Clinton speech on ANY TOPIC and have any sense of trust?" Never did. (and I don't trust any other politician either) Look, Clinton was (probably illegally) being asked about his sex life, he evaded (i.e. lied). SO FUCKING WHAT????????????? I have a much bigger problem with him bombing Iraq than lying about his sex life. Hmmm, let's see, killing people, lying, killing people, lying. I don't know, what do you think? The fact that we as a nation are prioritizing the impeachment over bombing a nation tells you how fucked up our ethics are (and we have the nerve to be talking about holding a president accountable, to a standard of ethics? puleeze). Patrick Bailey writes: "I want more from a president than his tenacious clinging to power. Even Tricky Dick knew that there was a limit to his lying." Yeah, well he actually did something worthy of impeachment!!!! MONDAY DEC. 21, 1998 10:21:43 AM FROM: YURI SAGAWA Valarie Smith writes: "We are losing sight of the distinction between sins, which ought to be between a person and his family and his God, and crimes, which are the concern of the state and society as a whole." Great quote V. But this is and has always been (since the genocide) a Christian nation. Separation of church and state? "God" is on our money, for god's sake! I agree he should receive some sort of punishment (if it wasn't illegal to ask him in the first place). ...I keep harping on Iraq because it so disgusts me how removed we are from the horror of what has been done, that we all just walk about like nothing has happened. Just because every other mofo up on Cap Hill does the same thing is no reason not to punish him, I agree, but let's go after the rest of them too! Let's hold our local politicians, our bosses, our co-workers, our friends, our family, our loved ones, our children just as accountable. I don't see that happening. I know it doesn't happen. We live in an unethical, compassionless society...(merry christmas!). MONDAY DEC. 21, 1998 10:23:26 AM FROM: PATRICK BAILEY It seems poor Bill has been victimized by someone. Just who? Are the women who have mentioned his illicit affairs his unfair oppressors? Should they have kept silent? Do they deserve to tell their stories and be listened to? Or does the president have more important things to do than respond to their questions? (Though he somehow found the time to dally with them in the first place. Funny how he ALWAYS HAS TIME FOR THAT!). MONDAY DEC. 21, 1998 10:27:15 AM FROM: MELINDA CRAWFORD Patrick Bailey writes: "It seems poor Bill has been victimized by someone. Just who? Are the women who have mentioned his illicit affairs his unfair oppressors? Should they have kept silent?" As a matter of fact, I think the answer is YES. That society is obsessed with sex, intrigue and scandal do not legitimize the facts. Patrick Bailey writes: "Do they deserve to tell their stories and be listened to?" That's what friends and priests are for. Not CNN. MONDAY DEC. 21, 1998 10:32:51 AM FROM: YURI SAGAWA Whoa. We are totally not communicating. I think we agree more than we disagree. What I am saying in addition to what you are saying is that our entire system is fucked up and that taking down one man won't change a thing. In fact, I think it will make the system worse. This is not about the women. It has never been about the women. If it were, I would be soooo happy. All those white straight good ol' boys on Cap Hill are NOT impeaching Clinton for "the women"--they don't give a damn about the women. It is all about power plays between those white straight good ol' boys who have always had the power. "The women" are being used by the republican congress just as much as Clinton ever used them. MONDAY DEC. 21, 1998 10:55:28 AM FROM: MICHAEL DONHOWE All this talk of morality is starting to scare me. Whose morals are we going to use as a measuring stick? I'm not an advocate of the recent attack on Iraq, but is it it "moral" to allow a nation that has recently attacked two of its neighbors, and has practiced genocide against its own Kurdish citizens, to build and maintain weapons of mass destruction? MONDAY DEC. 21, 1998 11:09:38 AM FROM: YURI SAGAWA I'm talking ethics, not morals. But point well taken. Michael Donhowe writes: "Whose morals are we going to use as a measuring stick?" That's definitely something we need to talk about more. Michael Donhowe writes: "I'm not an advocate of the recent attack on Iraq, but is it 'moral' to allow a nation that has recently attacked two of its neighbors, and has practiced genocide against its own Kurdish citizens, to build and maintain weapons of mass destruction?" No, but two wrongs don't make a right. There are other ways to go about it (not that I know exactly what they would be). Besides, the actions of the government are so very often separate from the feelings of the people (hmmm...what could she be referring to?). MONDAY DEC. 21, 1998 11:45:46 AM FROM: ANDREW BRUBAKER Yuri Sagawa writes: "Besides, the actions of the government are so very often separate from the feelings of the people (hmmm...what could she be referring to?)." Thank god or somebody for that. Ideally, everyone would be of the same temperament. All have the same feelings, all get along. Ahhhhh--nice. The actions of the military that you are referring to are separate from the feelings of the people for good reason. I wouldn't know the first thing about dealing with a guy like Hussein. My feelings say talk it out, figure it out like I do when I have a problem with something. Yeah that would fly. Without previous actions from our government, we would probably be speaking another language under a different government--one under which we wouldn't have the freedom to feel what we do or do what are doing now, which is basically wasting time. We have the luxury of having these feelings because we have been the top dogs with the biggest army and all the money. Yeehaw. We get spoiled and picky so we start scrutinizing every little thing. Like Clinton's sex life and O.J.'s gloves and Springer's guests. And then when something that demands our full attention, something slightly threatening and a real concern for our nation, we have the audacity to say that Clinton hired enough goons and morons that would agree with bombing a country just to get the public eye off of his crotch?!¿! Clinton may be a dumbass for getting caught, and maybe I'm too optimistic, but I don't believe all the other people that run this country with Bill are quite as careless. And if they are? Then what? I guess we can move. Or march on washington, or party like it's 1999. MONDAY DEC. 21, 1998 11:53:51 AM FROM: JOEL VAN ALLEN I don't think we need impeachment or the President's actions made public to tell the next generation anything about society that society as a whole didn't already teach them the first time they ever watched television. Let's impeach the President--will this somehow change how the next generation sees us? It's gonna take a hell of a lot more than that! More than likely, the personal agendas which have manifested into public action in the Congress are just about enough to make me daydream about expatriotism. Ah, those summers in Paris and their three-month vacations. MONDAY DEC. 21, 1998 12:00:56 PM FROM: YURI SAGAWA Hmmm.... I'm thinkin e-mail is not the forum to be having this discussion since both Andrew and Patrick seemed to totally not get what I was saying at all. Are people actually interested in discussing this over beer (or maybe that should be stew with this weather!!). MONDAY DEC. 21, 1998 12:40:31 PM FROM: JOHN GRAHAM Clinton lied to the American public...boo freaking hoo. We know he's lied to us from day one. Did anyone believe him when he said he smoked pot but "didn't inhale?" Of course not. We may be a stupid country as a whole, but NOBODY'S that dumb. We elected him twice anyway. Why? Because we (mostly) liked what he did for us--and the economy's good. That's why people liked Reagan, although he blatantly lied to Congress about the Iran-Contra affair, and that was FAR more important than getting sucked off in the Oval office (which was a minor domestic "affair," pun intended). Impeach him. I don't care. Put Gore in office, and he'll do nothing to "taint" the oh-so-esteemed office of the Presidency, but he won't do anything in terms of leadership either. Like Yuri said, this whole deal is about rich old whiteys waving their spotty dicks at each other from across the Capitol lobby. There is no idealistic crusade (they're all dirty in some way), no search for truth (none exists in politics) and no belief in justice (because he who wins writes history and decides what spin is required to justify his actions). - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Willamette Week | originally published December 29, 1998