Click THE SANDBOX number to go to that issue.
Use your browser's back button to return here.
 THE SANDBOX Archive ~ 2000 (part 2 of 5)
JUN, 2000 ~ #65, #66, #67, #68
JUL, 2000 ~ #69, #70, #71, #72, #73, #74
AUG, 2000 ~ #75, #76, #77, #78
******************************************** 

********************************************
THE SANDBOX ~ Issue #65 ~ June 3, 2000

           "The reward of a thing well done,
                     is to have done it."

                -Ralph Waldo Emerson
                         1803 - 1882

Look Who's Talking Today!

     "To have this site to express our feelings
 whether they jibe with any other's feelings, is
 another of our "Bomber wonders." Thanks one
 and all. 
          - Leona "Mari" Eckert Leahy, '65


     "Democracy will come to Cuba and life will
 get better for the Cubans....but not  by much....   
 Hyatt, Sheraton, Hertz, Avis, McDonalds will
 swarm into Cuba  and make it a wildly popular
 vacation destination... The Cuban population will
 turn into maids, carwash boys and fry cooks to
 serve the rich Americans that "freed" them and
 resentment will build as they realize that they
 aren't really going to get a piece of the pie and
 we'll look at them like 'aren't they grateful for
 everything we've done for them?'"
                      - Brad Upton '74


     "Walter Lippmann wrote "Don't close your
 mind until there's something in it." Cute phrase,
 that, but it got your attention enough to read on
 to where he makes the point that if you hope to
 get anything done, you can't have an "open mind"
 forever. At some point, you need to form an
 opinion and where possible to act on it. The
 SANDBOX of the Richland Bomber Alumni is a
 great vehicle to facilitate this necessary process.
                       - Dick Epler '52


     "A  local High School principal called a special
 parents meeting to warn them that the kids in
 H.S. today think that Oral Sex is just recreational
 and not really SEX.  Shame on Clinton and his
 minions.
                    - Steve Carson '58


     "I feel that most people on this board have
 been courteous, respectful, and fairly curious
 about what other people have to say. There have
 only been one or two people who have ever
 crossed the line in their rebuttals or responses to
 anything.
                     - Marc Franco '66


     "Maybe if elected officials had to play by the
 same rules as the people they serve, they would
 start thinking a little bit more like the people they
 serve."
                 - Mary Ray Henslee (61)

                             ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The SANDBOX, Issue #65, Salutes:
             The Col-Hi/RHS Class of 1965
To get to the '65 Home Page, go to:
 All Bomber Alumni Links at:
    http://www.bigfoot.com/~RichlandBombers
    "We Came, We Saw, We Conquered."
    When you click on 1965, you will find:
 E-mail addresses, links to personal home pages, 
 other sites of  personal interest, and a Photo
 Album showing us growing up in Richland, as
 well as glimpses of who we are and where we
 are today. Photos and anecdotes from class
 reunions and pictures or news articles of
 classmates are also shown here.  The Class 
 of '65 website design and maintenance is by
 Steve Upson (65).
 
                           ~ ~ ~ 

Here's More of What We're Talking About Today!

Subj:   Elian/Cuba
From:   Brad Upton '74
From:   bju@sprynet.com
 
This is my first time in the SANDBOX to give my
 two cents worth... The Elian Gonzalez fiasco is
 another non-issue, small story completely
 sensationalized and made into a big story by the
 media who now operate like Hard Copy.  This is
 one family having a dispute with the INS.  There
 are currently thousands of families in this country
 having citizenship arguments with the INS.  This
 story is a media wet dream...Thanksgiving day,
 clinging to an inner tube, dead mom...the media
 couldn't ask for a better set up.  Send him back. 
 He'll be okay with his dad and Grandmas.  What
 are we saving him from?

Yes, Cuba is communist, but not for much longer. 
 Fidel is in his mid-seventies with only the
 possibility of his younger brother (late sixties) to
 take over.  When Fidel kicks in the not too
 distance future, maybe his brother can hang on
 to 'the revolution' for a couple more years. 
 When  Fidel's brother/successor dies, some high
 ranking officer will make a power grab and be
 sorely disappointed when he finds out only eight
 to twelve soldiers are following him.  The U.S.
 will send in a multimillionaire Cuban-American 
 businessman to be the new president of the
 democracy and we will stick out our chest and
 claim victory.  Democracy will come to Cuba
 and life will get better for the Cubans....but not
 by much.  American corporations are salivating
 at getting into Cuba.  Hyatt, Sheraton, Hertz,
 Avis, McDonalds will swarm into Cuba and
 make it a wildly popular vacation destination. 
 The rich Cuban-Americans won't return
 (although they'll keep a vacation home there). 
 The Cuban population will turn into maids,
 carwash boys and fry cooks to serve the rich
 Americans that "freed" them and resentment will
 build as they realize that they aren't really going
 to get a piece of the pie and we'll look at them
 like 'aren't they grateful for everything we've
 done for them?'  They may have their freedom
 but very few will have their dignity.

                     - Brad Upton '74 

                              ~ ~ ~

Subj:   What Makes Our Country Great
From:  Leona "Mari" Eckert Leahy,'65
Me12147@aol.com

As to the ranting and ravings of  "the liberal
 (vicious) right," I have to say that's what
 makes our country so great--freedom of choice.
 The biggest part of that freedom allows all of us
 to make our own determination of what is
 politically correct and what isn't.  To have this
 site to express our feelings whether they jibe
 with any others feelings, is another of our
 "Bomber wonders." Thanks one and all. 

           - Leona "Mari" Eckert Leahy,'65

                              ~ ~ ~

Subj:   Opinions, the Venue of The SANDBOX
From:   Dick Epler
depler@ortelco.net
 
In Issue 63, Paul Webster (56) seems to wonder
 how people can feel so strongly about today's
 currently divisive issues, such as Fish or Power,
 or Elian's fate. But I suggest it is completely
 natural for people to have opinions about things
 they feel strongly about. The fact these things are
 more divisive than usual is not an accident. It's
 an election year, and politicians are looking for
 wedge issues. That may be Paul's point (but I'm
 not sure, Paul wasn't very explicit). It may be
 that Paul is simply frustrated by the obvious
 manipulation being exercised by our politicians.
 Being human, Paul no doubt senses that many of
 us get drawn into the fray more in response to
 the emotional content than the facts.

Nevertheless, I tend to agree with sentiments
 expressed by Paul's tongue-in-cheek praise of
 the SANDBOX's writers when he wrote "…
 how  blessed we were in Richland to be endowed
 with the intellectual honesty to be [100%] correct 
 on any subject we decide to write about"
 (I'd leave out the 100% bit). Though diverse, the
 opinions of most Bombers ARE "correct" within
 their own world view. Moreover, I find that the
 loyal contributors to the SANDBOX are all
 honorable and sincere people (no hidden
 agendas). Once in a while a real "flamer" comes
 along, but they usually drop by the wayside as
 more reasoned voices dominate. I credit most of
 this to Al Parker for developing a format that
 encourages such reasoned discussions.
 
For myself, I have to say that I enjoy reading the
 strong opinions expressed by the likes of John
 Allen and Marc Franco (there are many more).
 Their diverse opinions tend to coalesce my own
 thinking, while occasionally producing
 commentary from others like Gene Trosper who
 echoed my thoughts when he wrote in Issue 61,
 "I'd really like to say "thank you" for such an
 interesting e-publication: The SANDBOX."

Maybe 40 years ago, the renowned newspaper
 columnist (two Pulitzer Prizes) Walter Lippmann
 wrote "Don't close your mind until there's
 something in it." Cute phrase, that, but it got
 your attention enough to read on to where he
 makes the point that if you hope to get anything
 done, you can't have an "open mind" forever. At
 some point, you need to form an opinion and
 where possible to act on it. The SANDBOX of
 the Richland Bomber Alumni is a great vehicle to
 facilitate this necessary process.

Paul closed with the quote "Never try to teach a
 pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the
 pig." Cute, but nonsensical. More appropriate to
 my point is The Serenity Prayer: "God, grant me
 the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
 the courage to change the things I can, and the
 wisdom to know the difference." Reinhold
 Neibuhr (1926)

                         -Dick Epler '52
                      depler@ortelco.net

                                ~ ~ ~

Subj: Chicago: A bipartisan city    
From:   Steve Carson '58
SteveNitro@aol.com

1.  As a Chicago Conservative Republican I find
 Sherry Nugent Dupuy's characterization of
 people in Chicago being subservient and
 dominated by a democrat mayor waaaaaaay off
 base.  Richard J. Daley, our esteemed mayor, is a
 good man and is doing an excellent job.  This is
 truly a bipartisan city and that is one thing that
 makes it great and keeps me here.  

2.  I am not a radical anything but can not find
 anything redeeming about the Clinton presidency
 (lower case intentional).  he has demeaned us all
 and diminished the Presidency forever..  My
 granddaughter and her friends in High School
 have a very different view of right and wrong
 thanks to Bubba.  It is scary to hear some of the
 positions they take based upon the last seven
 years assault on family and personal values.  A
 local High School principal called a special
 parents meeting to warn them that the kids in HS
 today think that Oral Sex is just recreational and
 not really SEX.  Shame on Clinton and his
 minions.

3.  Good dialog overall and I appreciate The
 SANDBOX.

                   - Steve Carson '58

                             ~ ~ ~

Subj:   RE: A Challenge
From:   Marc Franco (66)
Reply-to: mfranco@sttl.uswest.net

One of our members has requested that we no
 longer quote people's names in our responses to
 their opinions. I will certainly honor his request
 and will no longer mention his name in my posts.
 However, I am afraid that I will fail his   challenge, 
 whatever it might be. I have no  problems with   
 people quoting my name in their  responses to 
 any opinion that I post, and I have  no problem 
 being held accountable for any  opinion that I 
 offer. Obviously my opinions are not always 
 correct, and in fact, I have been forced  to 
 change my mind at least twice on  issues,  
 because of very cogent and intelligent  responses 
 that have been made on some  comment that 
 I had made. I feel that most people  on this 
 board have been courteous, respectful,  and 
 fairly curious about what other people have
 to say. There have only been one or two people
 who have ever crossed the line in their rebuttals
 or responses to anything. I suspect that most of
 us  don't mind to be cited and, as I said earlier
 about myself, to be held accountable for our
 opinions. I will honor the unnamed person's
 request not to mention his name ever, but I fail
 the "challenge" for any other person- unless
 requested otherwise, of course.

                       - Marc Franco (66)

                                 ~ ~ ~

Subj:   Elected Official's Retirement Benefits
From:  Mary Ray Henslee (61)
mah@satx.net

This letter is in response to Maren's letter
 regarding the elite retirement benefits that
 elected officials receive at the tax payers expense
 and without contributing to Social Security.
 When my father worked for the government
 from 1948 to 1962, first for AEC in Richland
 and then for NASA in Houston, Social Security
 tax was not deducted from government
 employee's pay.  However, my father did have
 payroll deductions for a government annuity
 pension, which my mother still receives to this
 day.  Due to cost-of-living increases, her pension
 has grown substantially through the years.  It has
 always been my understanding that if my father
 had lived to retirement, my mother would not
 have received as much or none at all if it were
 not for the fact that my father paid in extra
 money so that my mother would be able to
 receive benefits.  I don't know what the
 reasoning was for government employees being
 exempt from paying any Social Security tax back
 then?  Maybe someone who knows could lend a
 clue.  In any case, there are similarities between
 what Maren says applies to elected officials
 today and the way things use to be for all
 government employees, with the exception of
 how the plan was paid for by the government. 
 There was no free ride to riches like Maren says
 elected officials are getting today by not having
 to contribute to their retirement plan.

I was shocked to find out from Maren that our
 Congressmen and Senators are not required to
 contribute to their retirement plan and do not
 have to pay any Social Security tax to boot.  I
 thought that all government employees had
 stopped being exempt from paying Social
 Security tax some years ago.  If I am right, than
 making elected officials exempt from paying into
 Social Security is definitely an egregious
 inequity.  We can only hope that some of their
 annuity is invested in the NASDAQ, which they
 are serving to bring down.  With the ripple effect
 that their assault on Microsoft is having, they
 may find themselves wanting back into the Social
 Security program.

Do I think that all government employees should
 pay Social Security tax like the rest of us? 
 Answer is....you bet.  Their pension program
 should be in addition to Social Security benefits
 just like the private sector.  Do I think that all
 government employees should have the same
 benefits package regardless of their position? 
 Answer is....you bet.  Private employers provide
 across the board benefits to all employees or face
 being charged with discrimination.  Maybe if
 elected officials had to play by the same rules as
 the people they serve, they would start thinking a
 little bit more like the people they serve.

My thoughts for the day for what they are worth! 

               - Mary Ray Henslee (61)

                            ~ ~ ~

Thank you one and all, for your entries and
 interest.  Please send all of you Ideas, Opinions,
 Personal Experience and subscription requests,
 (on or off) to:

           SANDBOX@richlandbombers.com

Lot's more stuff has already been "passed
 through the transom," so stay tuned everyone!

Wishing all of you a very rewarding summer,
   I remain your humble collector of Thoughts
   (Or something like that)
   - Al Parker '53
           
                       - 65 -
***************************************
***************************************

********************************************
THE SANDBOX ~ Issue #66 ~ June 15, 2000

      "This is our environment . . . 
      embracing our senses and mind . . . 
      beautiful in its desolation . . .
      dominated by the sun and the atom . . . 
      It will change . . . 
      and so will we . . . 
      but this is our remembrance of it in 1966."            
                      -1966 Columbian


Look Who's Talking Today!

     "In recent months, the Attorney General and
 the INS have repeatedly stated that families
 should be together.  In Miami they demonstrated
 their commitment to this ideal by resorting to
 armed violence to reunite a father and son.  Yet
 these same federal agencies have kept my son (a
 U.S. citizen) and his wife (a foreign national)
 separated since last July while he tries to weave
 his way through the bureaucratic red tape
 involved in obtaining an immigrant visa for her.."
                      - Robert Shipp '64

                                 ~ ~ ~

     "He will be remembered for his womanizing
 and His lying as his legacy as President, just as
 Nixon is remembered for Watergate, Johnson for
 Vietnam, Carter for the Iran hostages. In his
 actual actions as President, I really do not think
 he has been that bad."
                       - Marc Franco '66

                                 ~ ~ ~

     "If any one doesn't think Brad is correct in his
 Cuba in the Future, they had better take a look at
 the States of Oregon and Washington since the
 "TREE HUGGERS", Sierra Club and other self
 serving groups came in and Saved Us from
 ourselves."
                      - Gus Keeney (57)

                                 ~ ~ ~

     "...compute for me the probability that in the
 normal course of events during the last 4 years
 or so,  Paula Jones, Gennifer Flowers, Elizabeth
 Ward Grayson... and most recently, Juanita
 Broaddrick ... would all have been audited by the
 Federal IRS."
                        -John Allen '66

                                 ~ ~ ~

     "No matter how much Jell-O we put in a
 swimming pool we will not be able to walk 
 on water."
               - Verla Farrens Gardner '61

                                 ~ ~ ~

     [Re Elian Gonzales] "...has anyone considered
 what the outcome would have been if the roles
 had been reversed?"
              - Linda Reining Pitchford '64

                                 ~ ~ ~

     "He said he would like to come home, but he
 would like to bring a friend home to live with
 them also, who was missing an arm and leg."
                    - Bob Mattson 64

                                 ~ ~ ~


The SANDBOX, Issue #66, Salutes:
                       The Col-Hi/RHS Class of 1966

    To get to the '66 Home Page, go to: 
    All-Bomber-Links-
    http://www.bigfoot.com/~RichlandBombers
    When you click on 1966, you will find:

Pictures, Email Addys, Coat of Arms, Senior
 Poll, even grade school pictures and much more,
 including such memories as these:

               This We Will Remember . . .

     The amber sunset radiating into blue, 
      merging with the desert . . . 
      the searing sun reflected 
      in the coldness of a broad river . . . 
      the skeletal sage covering barren hills . . . 
      And below their dusty slopes, 
      gray domed reactors hide a core
      of searing energy . . . 
      And a small city . . .

      This is our environment . . . 
      embracing our senses and mind . . . 
      beautiful in its desolation . . .
      dominated by the sun and the atom . . . 
      It will change . . . 
      and so will we . . . 
      but this is our remembrance of it in 1966."               
                      ~1966 Columbian~

                                ~ ~ ~

Now, get ready for:
     More of What We're Talking About Today!

Subj: Reply to Barbara Doyle and Andrew Eckert
From:   Marc Franco (66)
Reply-to: mfranco@sttl.uswest.net

I wish to thank Barbara Doyle for responding to
 my question about what exactly Bill Clinton has
 done that is so different from other Presidents,
 other than the Monica affair. And I do thank
 you, Barbara. you made some nice points, but it
 will probably not surprise you to know that I do
 not agree with all of them. The "lying under oath
 and being caught at it" as far as I know was only
 in the Monica case, and maybe Paula Jones- in
 other words, about his personal immorality. I am
 still excluding that in terms of what he has done
 as President. Please understand that I am
 absolutely NOT excusing him for his actions.
 Most of the Liberals are as disgusted and
 horrified about it as anybody else, and I am no
 exception. However, I do not see that as a threat
 to the country, as was Watergate or the Iran-
 Contra affair. Obviously, the moral implications 
 concerning the youth of our country cannot be
 forgotten here, but that is another can of worms,
 which I would rather not go into here. Lying to
 his Cabinet and his friends, again, as far as I
 know, was only involving his extramarital affairs.
 Did he do that in any of his Presidential actions?
 I don't actually know- I'm asking. Concerning his
 depletion of the military- I actually agree with
 you on that. Jimmy Carter did the same thing,
 and then they had to be rebuilt when Reagan
 came in. However, Clinton's depletion of the
 military is not a reason to hate the man. All
 Presidents do things we do not agree with. His
 opinion is that the military could be depleted. If
 you or I do not agree, then we vote for
 somebody else next time. I agree with your
 point, but not with that it's a reason to hate the
 man. As far as hanging Reno out to dry- what
 would other President's have done in similar
 situations? I assume you are referring either to
 the Waco situation, or to the Elian affair. Both of
 these ARE the Attorney General's province. The
 president must set the policy, and ultimately
 takes the blame for anything, but these ARE the
 jobs of the AG to deal with. Incidentally, I
 agreed with the return of Elian to His father.
 Conservatives are often preaching "family
 values" as if nobody else has any, but obviously
 family values do not apply if you are a 
 Communist. And many people in the world do
 not share the American opinion that America is 
 the best place in the world for children.

         Again, Barbara, thanks for your reply.

I would also like to thank Andrew Eckert for his
 kind comments about some of my postings. It IS
 nice to receive support once in a while.
 However, believe it or not, Andrew, I do not
 really agree with your statement that Clinton is
 the best president of our time. He will be
 remembered for his womanizing and His lying as
 his legacy as President, just as Nixon is
 remembered for Watergate, Johnson for
 Vietnam, Carter for the Iran hostages. In his
 actual actions as President, I really do not think
 he has been that bad. He does deserve credit for
 the good economy. Alan Greenspan, by any
 standard deserves the lion's share of the credit,
 and we all know that- but Clinton would have
 been blamed if the economy had been bad- all
 Presidents are- so he deserves some credit for
 shepherding a good economy all these years.
 However, in terms of his actual
 accomplishments, Clinton really has not done
 much. He's been lucky in that there have been no
 foreign affair disasters, no economic disasters-
 really, only a smattering of fairly mild events for
 the entire term of his presidency. (Obviously,
 there have been murders, terrorism, etc. But this
 is always true for any President.) Clinton has
 functioned well as President, except for his
 womanizing, disgusting as that is. But he really
 has not done anything more than to have
 functioned well.
    I do thank you again, Andrew, and hope you
 do not mind my mild disagreement.

                   - Marc Franco (66)

                                ~ ~ ~

Subj:    Thoughts on Elian and US Immigration Policy
From:   Robert Shipp ('64)
rshipp@gateway.net (Robert Shipp)

1. Consider the following hypothetical situation:
 A woman flees from with her young daughter
 from her homeland - a nation where the rite of
 "female circumcision" is practiced - to spare her
 child this torture.  Upon arrival in the United
 States the mother dies, leaving the daughter in
 the care of relatives already living in this country.
 The girl's father arrives and demands the return
 of his daughter.  Would the INS consider for one
 minute sending her back to such a fate?  If it did,
 there would be such a clamor from human rights
 groups, feminists, religious leaders and
 politicians on both sides of the aisle that the
 government would immediately move to block
 her return.  If sending a child back to certain
 physical mutilation is anathema to Americans,
 why are we not equally opposed to sending Elian
 Gonzales back to face certain spiritual and
 intellectual mutilation at the hands of the Castro
 regime?

2.  In recent months, the Attorney General and
 the INS have repeatedly stated that families
 should be together.  In Miami they demonstrated
 their commitment to this ideal by resorting to
 armed violence to reunite a father and son.  Yet
 these same federal agencies have kept my son (a
 U.S. citizen) and his wife (a foreign national)
 separated since last July while he tries to weave
 his way through the bureaucratic red tape
 involved in obtaining an immigrant visa for her. 
 He currently works two jobs while attending
 school full time in order to afford plane fare so
 he can be with his wife for a few weeks at each
 school break.  I personally know several other
 young Americans who find themselves in similar
 situations.  Perhaps if the government spent as
 much effort and money on the "routine" cases as
 they do in providing lavish accommodations for a
 6-year old Cuban boy and granting instant visas
 to his father, grandmothers, schoolmates,
 teachers, etc., my son and others in his situation
 might be able to get on with their lives.

                    - Robert Shipp '64

                               ~ ~ ~ 

Subj:   Brad Upton on Cuba:
From:   Gus Keeney (57)
sgkeeney@ados.com

If any one doesn't think Brad is correct in his
 Cuba in the Future, they had better take a look at
 the States of Oregon and Washington since the
 "TREE HUGGERS", Sierra Club and other self
 serving groups came in and Saved Us from
 ourselves. It won't be long until the whole
 Northwest is Just a Big Park for them to come
 visit leaving only service oriented jobs for the
 people that live here all year long.  The Timber
 industries were self sustaining until the control
 was changed from local to federal. Most of us
 watched our jobs go overseas.

To Heck with it!! I'm moving to Yuma AZ. !!!!!

                      Gus Keeney (57)

                              ~ ~ ~

Subj:    PROBABILITY ???
From:   John M. Allen
Reply-to: miles2go@cheerful.com

IF I am an "extreme right-wing" "Clinton Hater,"
 that necessarily implies the existence of "extreme
 left-wing" "Clinton Lovers."  I therefore  
 challenge all you Clinton Lovers, especially those
 of you with impressive math backgrounds, to
 compute for me the probability that in the normal
 course of events during the last 4 years or so,
 Paula Jones, Gennifer Flowers, Elizabeth Ward
 Grayson (Miss Arkansas & Miss America '83
 who claimed to have had sex with Clinton), Billy
 Dale (head of White House Travel Office
 acquitted in 30 minutes of embezzlement charges
 brought by the Clintons) and most recently,
 Juanita Broaddrick (alleged that Clinton raped
 her), would all have been audited by the Federal
 IRS.  You can express the probability in terms of
 say, 1 chance in "X" number of opportunities
 (like the odds of winning the lottery), or perhaps
 you could simply use the "slithering" scale of
 "10" with 0 being "most unlikely" and 10 being
 highly likely.

               ---John Allen (Class of '66)

                                ~ ~ ~

Subj: Richland's legacy
Verla Farrens Gardner '61
verlag@bctonline.com

For me I like it when war is a card game and a
 water balloon is the ultimate weapon.

No matter how much Jell-O we put in a swimming
 pool we will not be able to walk on water.

              - Verla Farrens Gardner '61

                               ~ ~ ~

Subj: Because He's a Little Boy?  Or is it because
 we hate Castro?
From:   Linda Reining Pitchford (64)
Wabbithabit@aol.com

I am not sure if everyone is tired of the Elian
 Gonzales saga or not, but I have just a few
 thoughts that I would like to express, that I have
 not seen elsewhere.  has anyone considered what
 the outcome would have been if the roles had
 been reversed?  if his father had taken him,
 without the mother's permission, and had
 drowned, we would have immediately sent him
 home to be with his mother!!!!!!!!  regardless of
 the fact that he was from a Communist country,
 we would never have kept him from his mother! 
 if the media had stayed out of it, he would have
 been home a long time ago!!!!!!!!!  and as for
 granting him asylum, why should he get that
 privilege when there are others waiting for the
 same thing, and they are being sent home
 without any interference from the media??????? 
 is it because he is a little boy or because of our
 our hatred for Castro?  

             - Linda Reining Pitchford (64)

                                ~ ~ ~ 

Subj:   In Memorium
From:   Bob Mattson 64
Rmat683939@aol.com

A son who had broken off with his family before
 his effort in the Nam was over, finally called to
 talk. He said he would like to come home, but he
 would like to bring a friend home to live with
 them also, who was missing an arm and leg. 

They said, "What a burden on a family. "You
 are welcome, but your friend can only visit."

A few years went by without further word from
 the son.  One day the family was asked to
 identify the body of the son in a town across
 the state. It was then they realized it was their
 own son who'd been missing the arm and leg.

Let's try to be more compassionate friends to
 those who've become living memorials of the
 deeds and sacrifices, both of themselves and so
 many others, in the service of their country,

I picked this story up from somewhere, as you
 have, just now.

                     - Bob Mattson 64 

                               ~ ~ ~

Thank you, everyone for your continued interest 
 and contributions to The SANDBOX.  For
 technical reasons, it is now advisable to send
 your entries and subscription requests (on or off)
 to The_SANDBOX@bigfoot.com. Or you can  
 hit the reply button when you receive a copy of
 The SANDBOX.  I will get your mail just as
 readily. The main advantage of using the Bigfoot
 addy is, it will always forward mail to me even if
 the primary server for The SANDBOX is
 changed. Appropriately, we can use our name,
 The_Sandbox as an address with bigfoot, but
 weren't able to do so with an @aol mailbox
 because similar names were already being used
 by others.  As of  now, you can still get to me by
 sending your stuff to Sendbox@aol.com, but for
 an address that will allegedly always remain the
 same, you may want  to change The SANDBOX
 address in your address books right now, while
 you are thinking about it to:                  

            The_SANDBOX@bigfoot.com

        Because of some technical problems
We are dropping the RichlandBomber.com addys.

         Hope you are all enjoying a great
                     almost-summer!

  Al Parker (53)
  Intrepid Spreader of Your Innermost Thoughts
  (Or something like that.)

                        - 66 -
***************************************
***************************************

********************************************
THE SANDBOX ~ Issue #67 ~ June 17, 2000

     "The student consumer at Col-Hi suffers as
 the spring months approach, while there is a
 boost in the drug store economy in Richland due
 to the increased purchase of deodorant and
 No-Doz."

               - Senior Sandstorm, 1976

                            ~ ~ ~~

Look Who's Talking Today!

     "I have to ask the obvious question. Are all
 those people who wanted open trade with China
 now going to demand the same vis-a-vis Cuba?
 The claim is that trade will further democracy
 and human rights for the Chinese; sounds like a
 pretty strong argument to immediately end the
 embargo on Cuba, eh what?"

                        -Jim Rice '75

     "Those of us who grew up "pre TV" look with
 disdain on the younger generations who have
 lived with TV from birth. The TV isn't the problem
 - we are. For we have discovered that it is easier
 to either completely denounce TV or to give
 control of lives over to it. TV is a tool that we
 need to use, just like books, newspapers and
 radio. What's more, we need to teach others that
 there are many forms of information
 dissemination, and the easiest isn't always the
 best."

                        - Jay Siegel '61

     "... why ... is [Imperial retirement of lawmakers]
 not an issue with the electorate?... in the Q & A
 sessions for every Federal candidate for office, 
 including GW and Algore, this issue should be raised." 

                      - Steve Carson '58

     "Who would now like to calculate the
 probability that, had Bill Gates decided to pony
 up to the Democratic National Committee in a
 fashion commensurate with being the richest man
 in the world, his Microsoft Corporation would
 still be the target of federal anti-trust prosecution?"

                         - John Allen '66

     "If our illustrious 'congress persons' were
 made to pay social security from their salaries as
 representatives of the people, and their retirement
 "bennies" were paid from social security; then they
would not have a toy to scare
 the represented with.  Just how many times in the
 past fifteen or twenty years have we heard that
 the social security system is going bust?
 Especially around election time."

    - Robert Carlson (aka "Mike Clowes") '54

                            ~ ~ ~ ~ ~  


The Sandbox, Issue #67, Salutes The Class of '67  
To get to the '67 Home Page, go to:
    All-Bomber-Links-
    http://www.bigfoot.com/~RichlandBombers
    When you click on 1967, you will find:

 Reunions - Sports - Pictures from All Grades
 And articles, (such as excerpted here), from 
 the 1967 Senior Sandstorm.

Subj: The Class of '67 Is Hot!
From: The 1967 Senior Sandstorm

The student consumer at Col-Hi suffers as the
 spring months approach, while there is a boost in
 the drug store economy in Richland due to the
 increased purchase of deodorant and No-Doz.

...there is no air conditioning in the new wing. 
 With the increased use of ... "pit stoppers,"
 [deodorant] an air conditioning system was not
 installed when the building was constructed.

According to Mr. Lyda, Assistant Principal,
 "Classroom space was given ... priority over air
 conditioning... because without rooms it would
 be impossible to have school.  Air conditioning
 can be put in easily [later] because installation of
 mechanical equipment has allowed for it." ...

... What Col-Hi needs is an "Air Conditioning
 Booster Club" that could produce $40,000 in the
 next three or four years for the necessary coolant.

                  - 1967 Senior Sandstorm

                       ~  ~  ~  ~  ~  ~

   Here's More of 
                What We're Talking About Today!

Subj: Cuba
From: Jim Rice '75
From: jrice@sojourners.com

I think Brad Upton's right-on-the-mark about
 what's going to happen to Cuba.  In fact, it's
 already happening. A friend just came back from
 a five-month stay in Cuba, and she said that
 there's already a huge gap between the "tourist
 Cuba" (mainly for Europeans, but oh-so-ready
 for those American dollars) and the rest of the
 island. "Regular" Cubans aren't allowed in the
 luxury hotels or even on the tourist beaches.
 They can't ride in the "tourist" cabs, or shop at
 the special tourist stores. As Brad says, that
 situation will multiply when the sunny Cuban
 beaches are opened to vacationing Americans.
 Whether that will be better for the average
 Cuban is somewhat doubtful.

And speaking of Cuba, I have to ask the obvious
 question. Are all those people who wanted open
 trade with China now going to demand the same
 vis-a-vis Cuba? The claim is that trade will
 further democracy and human rights for the
 Chinese; sounds like a pretty strong argument to
 immediately end the embargo on Cuba, eh what?

                       -Jim Rice ''75

                             ~ ~ ~

Subj:   Misdirected Anger!
From:  Jay Siegel (61)
jazfuchsias@prodigy.net

No matter what you think of President Clinton as
 a person, he is the designated Head of State for
 the United States of America. Throughout his
 political career he has made his decisions on
 "what is good for Bill Clinton." If it was
 politically expedient, it was right, if it was not to
 his advantage it was wrong. His political
 appointments largely followed how many votes
 that the individual could provide. I have
 acquaintances in Alabama who still refer to him
 as "Wiley Willie."

The portrait that he has sent to the rest of the
 world, in general, is one that shows a lack of
 integrity and a strong tendency to distort motive.
 He is very good at that.

In his defense, our Nations moral ethic has
 changed such that his performance is acceptable.
 Good or bad, that is the bottom line. The reasons
 are many, but all boil down to communications.
 Several post graduate thesis can and have been
 written about the subject but it comes down to
 everyone can see, hear and interact with what is
 going on. If you like or dislike something, you
 can find someone to agree with you. It is very
 difficult to take the tack of "I believe this way,
 but I will listen to opposition and am willing to
 be proven wrong." That is admitting that one is
 a) fallible and b) human.

The reason for all of this? What ever the
 question, put aside your own thoughts and seek
 others; others that both agree and disagree.
 Listen to what they are saying and be willing to
 change if the facts warrant.

Brad, your letter echoes the doctrine that put
 Castro into the palace in Cuba. Cuba is a country
 of essentially two industries - agriculture and
 tourism. Small unit agriculture is on the low end
 of the income generating scale: a large number of
 people generating a small amount of income.
 Tourism, on the other hand, is on the high end of
 the scale with a few people generating a large
 amount of income. What you pointed out as a
 shortcoming, the low skill level support people,
 are actually the means of adjusting the
 agricultural household income upward.

The other part of the problem is the Ugly
 American syndrome that isn't a part of income,
 politics or anything more complicated than
 closed mindedness. I have seen it all over the
 world, in countries like Cuba and in more
 advanced countries. We, as a people, have had it
 good and, again as a people, think that it was
 because of our individual efforts that we are this
 way.

Those of us who grew up "pre TV" look with
 disdain on the younger generations who have
 lived with TV from birth. The TV isn't the problem
 - we are. For we have discovered that it is easier
 to either completely denounce TV or to give
 control of lives over to it. TV is a tool that we
 need to use, just like books, newspapers and
 radio. What's more, we need to teach others that
 there are many forms of information
 dissemination, and the easiest isn't always the
 best.

I spend, an average of 2 hours a day in front of a
 monitor, writing, working on webpages, working
 on data bases and doing research. I have made it
 a practice to take the top headlines, go to a
 couple of search engines and see what others are
 saying about subject - not only in the media or in
 the USA, but all over the world. Once you get
 out of the "air conditioned and directed"
 environment of the "media," it is amazing what
 we aren't being told.

For your info Gus, a good portion of the world
 felt that "We the People" are really jerks for
 giving into the "Tree-huggers."

With election year here, start getting away from
 the media and find out some of the other points
 of view towards candidates - remember, We
 elect (either directly or indirectly) those who
 make the decisions!

                       - Jay Siegel (61)

                               ~ ~ ~

Subj: Electorate Not Concerned Enough About
 The Percs Their Elected Representatives Endow
 Upon Themselves.
From:   Steve Carson (58)
SteveNitro@aol.com

Imperial Retirement:

Good discussion and what I don't understand is,
 why this is not an issue with the electorate?  The
 White House Sex story should be small
 potato(e)s to this and in the Q & A sessions for
 every Federal candidate for office, including GW
 and Algore, this issue should be raised.  

                    - Steve Carson (58)

                               ~ ~ ~

Subj:   More "PROBABILITY"
From: - John Allen '66
Reply-to: miles2go@cheerful.com

June 13th, 2000

Who would now like to calculate the probability
 that, had Bill Gates decided to pony up to the
 Democratic National Committee in a fashion
 commensurate with being the richest man in the
 world, his Microsoft Corporation would still be
 the target of federal anti-trust prosecution? 
 After all, if you contribute like Bernie Schwartz,
 CEO of Silicon Valley's Loral Corporation, you
 not only don't have the Clinton Department of
 Injustice (DOI) or the IRS on your back, you can
 pretty much be assured it is also OK to sell
 highly classified missile guidance technology to
 the Communist Chinese.  (Has anyone heard
 from under the rug about that case lately?  Of
 course not; today's front page story is, AGAIN,
 missing nuclear secrets from the Los Alamos
 weapons labs. Tomorrow it'll be yet another top
 secret laptop computer missing from the innermost
 sanctum of the State Department. What a guy, our 
 Bill!!  He really has things under control.)

Considering the Administration's full court press
 on Microsoft, gun manufacturers, and cigarette
 companies, the American Trial Lawyers 
Association is certainly one organization which
 has not been short-changed by the Clintons.  Just
 today, VISA and MasterCard are being added to
 the ever expanding list of DOI prosecutions. 
 American business is rapidly becoming a "target
 rich environment."  After all, it is not just a few
 lawyers from the Federal Government who are
 involved in the proceedings; it is also the hordes
 of lawyers working for, or consulting with, the
 many State Attorneys General who have joined
 the Feds in these prosecutions.  Add to that the
 legions of legal eagles for the many corporations
 being sued or prosecuted and it is difficult to
 see that the lawyers are NOT the only ones
 benefiting.  Whether as a taxpayer or a customer,
 you and I are paying their freight and these cases
 have already become some pretty long hauls. 
 Please understand, I make these observations
 without regard to whomever should or should
 not be prosecuted.  That's a wholly different
 subject which deserves future attention.  Rather I
 am suggesting motives other than "Justice" for
 these prosecutions, and trying to shed additional
 light on the power of money in the political
 process; especially where a corrupt president
 with willing accomplices is in charge.  Can
 anyone cite a big money contributor to the DNC
 who has also suffered through an IRS fishing
 expedition, a DOI prosecution, or who has even
 been deprived of his night in the Lincoln
 Bedroom?  And how are your IRAs and 401K
 Plans doing since Microsoft took that 49%
 plunge?

                - John Allen (Class of '66)

                               ~ ~ ~

Subj: Social Security and Retirement
From:   Robert Carlson (aka "Mike Clowes") '54
karylc@juno.com 

Re:  Mary Ray Henslee's ('61) comments on 
  Social Security

Let me preface my remarks by stating that I am
 what is known as a "double-dipper" when it
 comes to retirement money.  I receive military
 retirement for serving over 29 years both active
 and reserve, and I receive railroad retirement
 following 21 years of service there (plus a nice
 parting gift).

That being said, I did not contribute any more
 than my life and my time towards military
 retirement; the retirement being one of those
 things we referred to as "bennies."  I did,
 however have deductions made from my
 pay check toward railroad retirement, so there I
 have a vested interest.

Railroad retirement and social security are run by
 federal agencies, and as such are subject to
 monumental tamperings by our esteemed
 "congress persons."  I do get some social
 security, but it is a part of railroad retirement.  I
 couldn't get both; besides railroad retirement
 pays better.  A minor portion of railroad
 retirement is taxable, and, naturally, military
 retirement is taxed.

If our illustrious "congress persons" were made
 to pay social security from their salaries as
 representatives of the people, and their
 retirement "bennies" were paid from social
 security; then they would not have a toy to scare
 the represented with.  Just how many times in the
 past fifteen or twenty years have we heard that
 the social security system is going bust?
 Especially around election time.

No, Mary, there is no sanity clause when it comes
 to the Congress and Social Security.  And it
 makes no difference if the "congress person" is
 Republican or Democrat.  They both want their
 fingers in the cookie jar. Mainly, so they can tell
 us, the voters and represented, that they are
 striving diligently to preserve the Social Security
 system, and also remind us that it was not meant
 to be a retirement income.  "That's what your
 pension plan is for."  Who cares if the
 organization that was taking care of your
 pension fund went bust, or was absorbed by
 some bigger money vacuum.

     - Robert Carlson (aka "Mike Clowes") '54

                              ~ ~ ~

In a message dated 6/15/2000 9:15:38 AM Pacific 
Daylight Time, asking@worldnet.att.net writes:

<< 
 WOW!!  What a promotion for the '66 web site. 
 Thanks, Al!  Just curious, though, who paid you? 
 Ahh ... I just noticed that there is a page number
 of "-66-" on this issue of The Sandbox.  Perhaps
 that is my clue??  *GRIN*
 
 Peace,
 Shirley Collings Haskins, '66 Webmaster

DearShirley,

Perhaps you noticed also, that this was Issue #66
 of The SANDBOX?  I like to salute each class
 whose numbered year corresponds with the 
current SANDBOX Issue Number and "sign off" 
 with that number when the issue is complete. 
 Issue #67 of The SANDBOX will honor the
 class of 67 and so on and so on. Ending each
 issue with -66- OR -67-, etc., is a "play" on
 the traditional practice of reporters indicating to
 their editors and "type setters" that a piece of
 copy is complete by placing a "-30-" at the end.  
 I enjoy substituting the current issue number for
 the traditional -30- to signify and celebrate the
 fact that "the copy is complete."

Sorry I didn't see your name on the front page of
 your very fine -66- web site, Shirley. I would
 have been happy to give you credit for your hard
 work!

-Al Parker

Thanks for your Interest and Entries, everyone.  
 You may send your Ideas, Opinions and Personal
 Experience to The_Sandbox@Bigfoot.com, or
 simply press the Reply button in you mailbox and
 talk to us!
                                - ap

                     - 67 -
***************************************
***************************************

********************************************
THE SANDBOX ~ Issue #68 ~ June 24, 2000

 "I don't mind lying, but I hate inaccuracy."
             - Samuel Butler 1835 - 1902

Look who's Talking Today!

     "In those wonder years of our youth, before
 our  "rich uncle" decided to get out of the
 landlord  business, and actually allowed the
 "serfs" to buy their own houses; the only way
 one could live in either Richland or North
 Richland was to have the "head of the house"
 working for, (in those days), the A.E.C., G.E., or
 any of the other contractors, subcontractors, or
 [others] ... supplying goods and services to
 the community.  Loose your job, loose your
 house, very feudal."
     - Robert Carlson (aka "Mike Clowes") '54


     "NOT ONLY was he the man who signed
 the law that allows for a plaintiff's attempt to
 establish a defendant's pattern and practice of
 sexual behavior, it was Clinton himself, AS
 president, who PERSONALLY WROTE that
 section of the law for inclusion before he would
 consent to sign it."
                      - John Allen `66

     "...it seems to me that the single unifying
 sentiment most thinking American's will
 remember about Bill Clinton is his success in
 legitimizing bad behavior."
                       - Dick Epler `52

                             ~ / ~ / ~

Here's more of what we're talking about today:

Subj:   Did We Live In Feudal Times?
From:  Robert Carlson (aka "Mike Clowes") `54
karylc@juno.com

Re: Remarks of Verla Farrens Gardner `61

In those wonder years of our youth, before our
 "rich uncle" decided to get out of the landlord
 business, and actually allowed the "serfs" to buy
 their own houses; the only way one could live in
 either Richland or North Richland was to have
 the "head of the house" working for, (in those
 days), the A.E.C., G.E., or any of the other
 contractors, subcontractors, or those merchants
 supplying goods and services to the community. 
 Teachers, policemen, firemen, doctors and
 nurses were also included in this category. 
 Loose your  job, loose your house, very feudal.

The low crime rate was due to an unemployment
 rate of 0% (at least amongst adults).  There  was
 a rumor in my day that a portion of the Bomber
 football team was subsidized by employment at
 Johnny's Minute-Man Service Station in   Uptown.

Yes, we did feel safe at night.  There was no
 "criminal element" in town; they lived in Pasco
 or Kennewick.  And I think that feeling lasted for
 sometime well after the "Village" became
 self-governing.

Were we privileged to live in such an
 environment?  You "betcher bippy."  But there
 was a benign underlying reason:  "A good
 worker is a happy worker."  How to you keep
 them happy after spending a day in the desert? 
 Provide a safe home environment, also somewhat
 feudal in concept.

We may not like the product our fathers
 produced, but it was a necessary one.  I know
 ends don't justify the means.  Once in a while you
 have to do something that makes you proud of
 the work and effort you put into it, but not too
 happy with the result of your work.

I don't know if any of this makes any sense.  And
 it may all be a generational thing.  Those of us
 who were born before the war (WW II) and
 remember it, look at life a little differently than
 those who were born during or after and have no
 memories of it.
     - Robert Carlson (aka "Mike Clowes") '54

                               ~ ~ ~

Subj:    AN INSIGNIFICANT "PERSONAL MATTER?"
Reply-to: miles2go@cheerful.com

June 15th, 2000

I truly sympathize with those who are unable to
 keep straight the reasons why many Americans
 are so incensed by Bill Clinton's distant
 relationship with the truth.  Many are not
 politically disposed to believe the facts about the
 man, so they really don't spend much time
 looking for them, but it is fair to say that the
 number and complexity of Clinton's
 transgressions challenge the mental prowess of
 even the most ardent political junkies.  The
 following three paragraphs are a succinct but
 accurate explanation why his lying in the matter
 of the lawsuit brought by Paula Corbin Jones,
 was not some inconsequential "personal matter"
 which should have been dismissed by the US
 Senate.

Federal law governing lawsuits like the one
 brought against Bill Clinton by Paula Jones,
 allows the plaintiff (Jones, in this instance) to ask
 questions of the defendant (Clinton) about his
 sexual history in an attempt to establish that the
 defendant has demonstrated a pattern and
 practice of sexual behavior which supports the
 allegations of the plaintiff.  Thus, having been
 informed about Clinton's dalliances with
 Monica Lewinsky the night before his sworn
 deposition, the Paula Jones attorneys questioned
 the President during that deposition about his
 relationship with the young intern.  The   workplace
 relationships between the two women and 
 Clinton at the time of his alleged transgressions
 were effectively identical, and the Jones attorneys
 hoped to show that Clinton had a  pattern and 
 practice of preying on women in the
 workplace who were extraordinarily junior to
 him.  In both situations, the women were at the
 bottom of the organizational chart and Clinton
 was the chief executive (Governor of Arkansas
 for Jones and President of the United States for
 Lewinsky).  In fact, the women were so low in
 the pecking order that both situations were
 identical to those which the National
 Organization for Women (NOW) had previously
 described as being tantamount to rape.  Prior to
 this case, it was NOW's contention that due to
 the gross disparity in workplace power, no true
 consent on the part of a woman in such a sexual
 predicament, is even possible. Kathleen Willy
 was yet another "low on the totem pole" woman
 whose testimony the Jones attorneys hoped
 would demonstrate Clinton's pattern and practice
 as a sexual predator.  It was Clinton's
 UNTRUTHFUL testimony during this Jones
 deposition (Dec '97) that later prompted
 Federal Judge Susan Webber Wright to find him
 in contempt of court and fine him $93,000.  That
 fine was, of course, in addition to the more
 than $700,000 that Clinton ultimately paid Paula
 Jones to settle her lawsuit.  Clinton and his
 attorneys never contested the contempt citation
 for what should be obvious reasons.  It is this
 same Jones deposition testimony, in addition to
 his testimony before the Starr Grand Jury,
 which has caused disbarment proceedings to be
 brought against the President in Arkansas; the
 state which holds his law license.

THE MOST DAMAGING FACT surrounding
 Clinton's lying during the Jones sworn deposition
 is that, NOT ONLY was he the man who signed
 the law that allows for a plaintiff's attempt to
 establish a defendant's pattern and practice of
 sexual behavior, it was Clinton himself, AS
 president, who PERSONALLY WROTE that
 section of the law for inclusion before he would
 consent to sign it.  He undoubtedly never
 believed that he would be caught by his own
 legal work, but such incredible arrogance is a
 common failing of the common criminal.  So the
 obvious question, to which I have never seen a
 good answer, is:  "When any President of the

United States, for the most self-serving of
 reasons, is caught dead to rights conniving to
 violate a federal law which he has personally
 written, how can that NOT be a direct and
 significant threat to the country's belief in, and
 adherence to, the 'Rule of Law'?"  Please,
 somebody, don't tell me what other presidents or
 politicians may have done; just answer that one
 question directly.

There is undoubtedly some quark of truth to the
 Liberal excuse that Clinton lied to protect his
 family, but considering his consistently
 careless sexual history, that thought must have
 been well astern his other considerations.  For
 example, can you imagine what a judgment
 against him at trial would have totaled if had he
 told the "whole truth" during the Jones
 deposition.  The unmitigated fact is that by lying,
 Clinton knowingly, willfully and arrogantly
 attempted to deprive Paula Jones of her
 constitutional right to "due process," and to set
 himself above the "Rule of Law" which is the
 keystone of the American experiment.  (It is that
 same "Rule of Law" about which Clinton, his
 Attorney General, and his personal mouthpiece,
 Greg Craig, spoke with such reverence during
 the Elian Gonzales fiasco.)  And what were the
 high and honorable motivations for Clinton's lies? 
 The MAN wanted to avoid enormous financial
 loss, and the President, AS president, wanted
 to avoid swift and certain political annihilation. 
 Remember, his own poll taken the night before
 he looked the nation in the face to lie about his
 behavior said that, at that moment in time, he
 could not survive politically if he admitted his
 oval office carousing, and his lies about it while
 under oath.  Bill Clinton has now lied to so many
 people about so many different things, the most
 amazing fact of the 21st Century to date, is that
 anyone still believes him about anything.  Of
 course, thousands of Americans still send money
 to Jimmy Swaggert.

Beyond any doubt, P.T. Barnum had it right.

I hope I have enlightened those who still suffer
 confusion regarding this admittedly complicated
 matter.
                - John Allen (Class of '66)

                               ~ ~ ~

Subj: Clinton's Legacy
Dick Epler (52)
depler@ortelco.net

I rather enjoyed Marc Franco's replies to Barbara
 Doyle and Andrew Eckert (SANDBOX #66)
 regarding Clinton's legacy. Marc's response
 seemed eminently reasonable and obviously
 written by a very thoughtful man. Most of my
 liberal friends have expressed similar arguments
 in the past (not so much today). In these pages,
 Marc's defense of Clinton has never wavered. To
 paraphrase: "Clinton's transgressions are only
 about his personal life and are being blown out of
 proportion by right wing ‘haters,' but on balance,
 Clinton has been good for the country."
 Recently, however, I have detected a shift in
 intellectual sentiment that wasn't reflected by
 Marc … and I'm a bit surprised.
 
The use of the pejorative term "Clinton Hater" is
 now recognized by most as a ploy adopted by
 Hillary and the White House to deflect criticism
 of Bill and so I was surprised to see Marc's use
 of the emotionally-loaded "hate" word. Of
 course, Marc might point out that Reagan
 supporters talked about Reagan haters but the
 difference is that, in those days, Reagan's brand
 of Americanism inspired a great deal of genuine
 hate from the left and the term was an apt
 descriptor. The genius of Clinton has always
 been to adopt much of what resonated about
 Reagan to his own needs … and in that, Marc is
 half-right: most conservatives hate the strategy,
 if not the strategist himself. While there may be
 Clinton haters, I doubt if Barbara is a Clinton
 hater in the same way Rosie O'Donnell is a
 Reagan hater.

Marc has consistently questioned the differences
 between Clinton and other Presidents, implying
 that all have used power in similar ways. But
 that's never been the issue. With Clinton, it's not
 just the use of power; it's the way he's used
 power to achieve unconstitutional results outside
 of domains of National and Presidential
 prerogatives. His disregard of the Constitution is
 unmatched by any other President.
 
Putting that aside, however, it seems to me that
 the single unifying sentiment most thinking
 American's will remember about Bill Clinton is
 his success in legitimizing bad behavior. In my
 mind, that will always be his legacy. In the last
 eight years, our nation has undergone a major
 paradigm shift regarding acceptable behavior.
 Indeed, many Americans are increasingly
 convinced that deep down humanity is rotten to
 the core and that now, with increased prosperity,
 but without the restraints of law and religion,
 people naturally revert to the most obnoxious
 behavior imaginable.
 
Unfortunately, the Clinton Presidency has
 brought us to this point with a great deal of help
 from the intellectual elite, the media, and the
 entertainment industry. Consider that, before
 Clinton, we didn't have school shootings; we
 didn't have our athletes and coaches choking
 each other; we didn't celebrate "hate crimes;"
 national defense was strong and morale was
 high; and we certainly didn't have as much
 explicit and deviant sex in our music and movies.
 This is not progress. History tells us that these
 trends do not bode well for civilization, for
 which the cornerstones have always been a
 healthy respect for law along with a consistent
 moral compass.
 
I'm sure Marc knows this, as do all of my
 intellectual friends, but they have big problem.
 Unstated by most is their fear that we could
 return to Reagan's brand of Americanism. And
 so, they feel justified in defending Clinton's
 Presidency and in strongly supporting almost any
 democrat against any republican. Their
 justification is a belief that a strong centralized
 government run by elitists will know best how to
 allocate the nation's resources and wealth. The
 idea of a un(der) educated commoner running
 the government (like Reagan or George W.) is
 anathema. The intellectual elite generally doesn't
 trust ordinary people to know what's good for
 them.

The bigger problem, however, is that even in the
 Democratic Party intellectuals are a minority.
 The media and entertainment industry dominate
 and have a far different agenda. Many worry that
 if the Republicans get into power they will be out
 of a job. It's far easier to sell sex, violence, and
 raunchy comedy than anything based on the
 more intelligent aspects of humanity. A President
 that might encourage a return to higher values
 would be a significant danger to the employment
 of many in the industry today.

Nevertheless, the reason sex and violence sell so
 well is that most of us find it all so fascinating
 and the notion it might go away seems like a loss
… admittedly a BIG loss for the young, but
 probably not so much for the older generations.
 We all know, intuitively, that it is our
 impressionable young, and our defenseless old,
 who suffer the most damage from increased
 levels of sex and violence.

Social scientists tell is that the real "haters" of
 conservatism, a relative minority to be sure, all
 seemed to have had a bad experience,
 somewhere in their past, with a church, a parent,
 or the schools, where they were severely
 chastised for some sort of immoral behavior,
 generally of a sexual or violent nature. To these
 people, Clinton is a legitimate hero! Through his
 administration, Clinton has carefully crafted a
 number of policies designed to minimize the
 constructive influence of parents, church, and
 schools, on our children (most recently
 showcased by the Elian incident). At long last,
 these "victims" have a prominent advocate to
 assure them that there is no right or wrong
 because context is everything. If your intentions
 are good, or your needs real, then the result is
 justifiable (even murder). The fact this applies
 only for those in control of the nation's judicial
 and enforcement machinery is lost on them. And
 so our TV and print media are increasingly
 devoted to incidents involving these "victims" of
 Clinton's legacy … and I KNOW that bothers all
 my intellectual friends.

                      - Dick Epler (52)
                           - 68 -
***************************************
***************************************

********************************************
THE SANDBOX ~ Issue #69 (two parts) ~ July 2, 2000

Look who's Talking Today!

     "With the Fourth of July rapidly approaching
 it's  good to reflect on its real meaning and the
 sacrifices others have made for our benefit"

             - Linda Reining Pitchford `64

     "Do we blame the incumbent for all the ills of
 society, or is it really ourselves and what we
 have allowed ourselves to become?  What ever
 happened to responsible citizens?  Have we not
 abrogated responsibility for litigation?"
          -Bob Carlson (aka "Mike Clowes") `54

     "I have major problems with "liberals" who
 have no real principles, and "conservatives"
 whose real agenda is to control the lives of
 others."
                       - Anna Durbin `69

     "On occasion there is some purpose served in
 restating an idea or position so that it might
 reach those who missed it initially, or perhaps
 give others who may require it, a better
 understanding of the original point."
                     - John Allen `66

Also in this issue:
      Pulse Polls submitted by Gary Behymer (64)

                 ~  -  ~  -  ~  -  ~  -  ~
                          
Because of space limitations in Issue #68 the
 Class of `68's Home Page wasn't given the
 attention it deserved. There you will find:


The Class of 1968 Motto -  
    "If there is not a path, we shall make one."
Class of 1968 Song - "The Impossible Dream" 
Class of 1968 Colors - Silver and Purple 
Class of 1968 Flower - The Rose

To get to the `68 Home Page, go to:
    All-Bomber-Links-
    http://www.bigfoot.com/~RichlandBombers
    When you click on 1968, you will find:

Class Roster, E-Mail Links, Both grade school
 and Col-Hi Pictures of `68 grads.  Also: Class of
 1968 Missing Classmates, Memorial Page, A
 page honoring veterans, "History - Before the
 Bomb," Manhattan Project Certificate, and more.

                            ~ ~ ~ ~

Issue #69 of The SANDBOX salutes:
                      The Class of 1969

To get to the `69 Home Page, go to:
    All-Bomber-Links-
    http://www.bigfoot.com/~RichlandBombers
    When you click on 1968, you will find:

Grade School Pictures, In Memory of, Classmates 
Home Pages. Missing Classmates Birthdays, Class 
Roster, E-Mail Roster...

Class Quote: Some men see things as they are
 and ask, "Why?" I dream things that never were
 and say, "Why not?"
                    -Edward Kennedy
Class "Flower" Gardenia
Class "Colors" Olive Green, Peacock Blue, and Silver
Class "Feelings"

SOMEWHERE
There's a place for us,
Somewhere a place for us;
Peace and quiet and open air
Wait for us somewhere.

There's a time for us,
Someday a time for us;
Time together with time to spare,
Time to learn, time to care,
Wait for us somewhere.

                           ~-~-~-~-~-~

Here's More of What We're Talking About Today:

[Normally the Sandbox publishes the Original
 Ideas, Opinions and Personal Experiences of
 RHS/Col-Hi alumni, friends and family.
 Today we take exception to our normal protocol
 in order to recognize the tremendous sacrifice
 made by so many who were willing to risk
 so much, including their very lives, in order
 to build a nation in which freedom could
 endure.  This freedom includes the very precious
 freedom of personal expression we are privileged
 to share here.  -ap]

Subj:   Freedom Is Never Free
From: Linda Reining Pitchford (64)
Wabbithabit@aol.com
To: The SANDBOX

With the Fourth of July rapidly approaching it's
 good to reflect on its real meaning and the
 sacrifices others have made for our  benefit. So, I
 thought I'd pass this along.

Article Forwarded:

Have you ever wondered what happened to the
 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence?

Five signers were captured by the British as
 traitors and tortured before they died.

Twelve had their homes ransacked and burned.

Two lost their sons serving in the Revolutionary 
Army, another had two sons captured.

Nine of the 56 fought and died from wounds or
 hardships of the Revolutionary War.

They signed and they pledged their lives, their fortunes,
and their sacred honor

What kind of men were they?

Twenty-four were lawyers and jurists.  Eleven
 were merchants, nine were farmers and large
 plantation owners; men of means, well educated. 
 But they signed the Declaration of Independence
 knowing full well that the penalty would be death
 if they were captured.

Carter Braxton of Virginia, a wealthy planter and
 trader, saw his ships swept from the seas by the
 British Navy.  He sold his home and properties
 to pay his debts, and died in rags.

Thomas McKeam was so hounded by the British
 that he was forced to move his family almost
 constantly.  He served in the Congress without
 pay, and his family was kept in hiding.  His
 possessions were taken from him, and poverty
 was his reward.

Vandals or soldiers looted the properties of
 Dillery, Hall, Clymer, Walton, Gwinnett,
 Heyward, Ruttledge, and Middleton.

At the battle of Yorktown, Thomas Nelson, Jr.,
 noted that the British General Cornwallis had
 taken over the Nelson home for his
 headquarters.  He quietly urged General George
 Washington to open fire.  The home was
 destroyed, and Nelson died bankrupt.

Francis Lewis had his home and properties
 destroyed.  The enemy jailed his wife, and she
 died within a few months.

John Hart was driven from his wife's bedside as
 she was dying. Their 13 children fled for their
 lives.  His fields and his gristmill were laid to
 waste.  For more than a year, he lived in forests
 and caves, returning home to find his wife dead
 and his children vanished.  A few weeks later, he
 died from exhaustion and a broken heart.

Norris and Livingston suffered similar fates.
 Such were the stories and sacrifices of the
 American Revolution.  These were not
 wild-eyed, rabble-rousing ruffians.  They were
 soft-spoken men of means and education.  They
 had security, but they valued liberty more.

Standing straight, and unwavering, they pledged: 
 "For the support of this declaration, with firm
 reliance on the protection of the divine
 providence, we mutually pledge to each other,
 our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor."

They gave you and me a free and independent
 America.  The history books never told you a lot
 about what happened in the Revolutionary War. 
 We didn't fight just the British.  We were British
 subjects at that time and we fought our own
 government!

Some of us take these liberties so much for
 granted, but we shouldn't.

So, take a few minutes while enjoying your 4th of
 July Holiday and silently thank these patriots. It's
 not much to ask for the price they paid.
 Remember:  Freedom is never free!

I hope you will show your support by please
 sending this to as many people as you can.  It's
 time we get the word out that patriotism is NOT
 a sin, and the Fourth of July has more to it than
 beer, picnics, and baseball games.

 Forwarded by:  - Linda Reining Pitchford (64)

                               ~ ~ ~

   End of Part A, The SANDBOX, Issue #69

                           ~-~-~-~-~-

The SANDBOX ~ Issue #69 ~ Part B ~ July 2, 2000

Subj: Re: Dick Epler's `52 comments in Issue #68
From:   Bob Carlson (aka "Mike Clowes") `54
bobs@proaxis.com

Dick, I just gotta say that for the most part you
 made a believer out of me, but, when you put
 society's ills at the feet (of clay) of "Slick Willie"
 I draw the line.

I imagine that people back the 18th century
 felt the same way when they heard about
 Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemmings.  And in
 the early part of the 20th century, probably much
 the same was said over the antics of Warren
 Gamiel Harding.  I know, Warren didn't do "it"
 in the Oval Office, but instead he used a
 convenient cloak room down the hall.

I often wonder if any of this would have happened,
 had not "Tricky Dick" done the Watergate thing. 
 Would certain right-wingers been so zealous in
 their "witch-hunt" to find evil doings by
 whichever Democratic president sat in the White
 House.  They probably tried with "St." Jimmy
 Carter, but I guess lusting in one's heart isn't bad
 enough.

You realize, of course, that none of this would
 have come out had not these people been out for
 Clinton's hide.

Do we blame the incumbent for all the ills of
 society, or is it really ourselves and what we
 have allowed ourselves to become?  What ever
 happened to responsible citizens?  Have we not
 abrogated responsibility for litigation?

You and I are of an age to remember corporal
 punishment in school, where the "board of
 education" was applied to the "seat of learning." 
 And our parents did not complain about it, or
 take the matter to court.  If we screwed up in
 school and got punished for it, that was all in the
 learning process.  And, what's more, we probably
 had to make a "trip to the woodshed."
It may not be "right" by today's standard, but it
 certainly met the constitutional requirement for
 swift justice.  And, for you "boomers," we
 didn't consider it "cruel and unusual"
 punishment.  You took your licks and went on
 with life.  And our parents were not threatened
 by some governmental child-welfare agency
 either.  Although some "shrink" would have us
 as abused children.  I don't know about you,
 Dick, but I didn't feel abused.

All in all, I think the whole impeachment business
 was more of a political get even for something
 that previously happened.  I know certain liberal
 Democrats tried to blame Eisenhower for the
 excesses of the junior Senator from Wisconsin. 
 But McCarthy was more of a product of the
 time, and most certainly an opportunist of the
 first water.  He may have been one of Ike's
 crosses to bear, but he was not of Ike's doing.

      -Bob Carlson (aka "Mike Clowes") '54

                                ~ ~ ~

Subj: Responding and Asking: 
           Which Statute?  Which Social Scientist?
From:   Anna Durbin `69
golddurb@libertynet.org 

Dear John:  I fear that the following paragraph is
 another fallacy attempting to support a weak
 argument.  I am trying not to use loaded attack
 words, but I really want to know what is the
 statute to which you are referring.  I am not
 aware of one.  When you tell me that one, I will
 have worked on an answer to your question.  

Anna Durbin quotes the following paragraph from SANDBOX Issue #68:

  >THE MOST DAMAGING FACT surrounding
  Clinton's lying during the Jones sworn
  deposition is that, NOT ONLY was he the man
   who signed the law that allows for a plaintiff's
   attempt to establish a defendant's pattern and
   practice of sexual behavior, it was Clinton
   himself, AS president, who PERSONALLY
  WROTE that section of the law for inclusion
  before he would consent to sign it.  He
  undoubtedly never believed that he would be
  caught by his own legal work, but such
  incredible arrogance is a common failing of the
  common criminal.  So the obvious question, to
  which I have never seen a good answer, is: 
  "When any President of the United States, for
  the most self-serving of  reasons, is caught dead
  to rights conniving to violate a federal law
  which he has personally written, how can that
  NOT be a direct and significant threat to the
  country's belief in, and adherence to, the 'Rule of
  Law'?"  Please,  somebody, don't tell me what
  other presidents or politicians may have done;
  just answer that one question directly.<

Dear Dick:

        What "social scientists" are you referring to? 
 What this says in plain words is that anyone who
 "hates" (subtext "disagrees with?") conservatism
 is a pervert.  Although I think of myself as a
 progressive person, I do like true, honest
 conservatives who believe in the individual's
 right to autonomy, and not in the government's
 right to be in our homes, bedrooms, and limiting
 the robust expression of our opinions.  I have
 major problems with "liberals" who have no real
 principles, and "conservatives" whose real
 agenda is to control the lives of others.  

       I am afraid that Clinton is not your culprit, as
 flawed a human being as he is.  Who owns this
 media that has come to have such influence over
 us and our children?  The mega corporations and
 the mega rich.  I think we need to turn off the
 TV more and not patronize the movies which
 purvey these views.  My sister is afraid to go into
 Philadelphia because she watches the evening
 news which has led her to believe that only
 young black killers inhabit it.  The media's
 sensationalism has produced a more racist
 society which believes it is solving its problems
 by locking up the largest number of people in the
 world, more than China, at the same time as we
 destroy instead of build up the public education
 system which in the past made us the most
 innovative country with the biggest chance at
 upward mobility in the world. Corporate
 executives are rewarded with stock options for
 getting rid of loyal workers instead of rewarding
 loyal workers.

        Masterfully made as it was, I don't think
 American Beauty should have been best picture. 
 Its stereotypic view of most adults did not really
 contribute a reasoned discussion of the human
 condition and the motivations of human beings. 
 My daughter rented it and then left it for me to
 watch, and I was glad I hadn't paid to see it at a
 theater.  I was sorry she had and had additionally
 patronized the video.  I can appreciate its
 teenaged alienation point of view, but I don't
 think it was done by what I would call  
 responsible adults.  Of course, I would not
 censor it.  However, I would also not glorify it. 
 Cider House Rules had a more layered    
 presentation of the mixed good and bad of
 humans that influence their choices or what they
 see as necessities.

Durbin Quotes Epler in the following paragraph:

>Social scientists tell is that the real "haters" of
> conservatism, a relative minority to be sure, all
> seemed to have had a bad experience,
> somewhere in their past, with a church, a
> parent, or the schools, where they were
> severely chastised for some sort of immoral
> behavior, generally of a sexual or violent
> nature. To these people, Clinton is a legitimate
> hero! Through his administration, Clinton has
> carefully crafted a number of policies designed
> to minimize the constructive influence of
> parents, church, and schools, on our children
> (most recently showcased by the Elian
> incident). At long last,
> these "victims" have a prominent advocate to
> assure them that there is no right or wrong
> because context is everything. If your intentions
> are good, or your needs real, then the result is
> justifiable (even murder). The fact this applies
> only for those in control of the nation's judicial
> and enforcement machinery is lost on them.
> And so our TV and print media are increasingly
> devoted to incidents involving these "victims"
> of Clinton's legacy and I KNOW that bothers
< all my intellectual friends.

>                      - Dick Epler (52)

        George W. and his dad are certainly not
 "uneducated commoners." They are moneyed
 aristocracy that went to Yale.  And don't delude
 yourself, Reagan's government was run by elites. 
 I have to say, the Republicans have had more
 than their share of sanctimonious hypocrites. 
 Newt Gingrich and Livingston decrying the
 President's morality while committing the same
 acts?  Give me a break.

       I say keep up the good work, Marc Franco.  
                       - Anna Durbin '69

                                 ~ ~ ~

From: --John Allen `66
Reply-to: miles2go@cheerful.com
June 16th, 2000

On occasion there is some purpose served in
 restating an idea or position so that it might
 reach those who missed it initially, or perhaps
 give others who may require it, a better
 understanding of the original point.  First let me
 say that when I write something for "The
 Sandbox," simply by the act of attaching my
 name, I consider that I am accountable for what I
 have written.  I readily concede that any idea or
 opinion I may offer has been influenced by others
 who, by their words (written or spoken) and/or
 their actions (positive or negative), have
 helped bring me to a certain point of view.
 However, once I attach my name to an opinion, I
 consider myself solely accountable.  By
 "accountable," I mean, in part, that I will not
 attempt to diffuse or dilute FULL responsibility
 for my opinions by informing you, the reader,
 about which members of my family, which of my
 friends, or what percentage of the American
 electorate I perceive to be in agreement with
 me.  WHO CARES??  Those little factoids are
 entirely irrelevant to an opinion or to being
 "accountable" for it.  I fully expect that with
 some regularity, I will not be in the "Mainstream
 of American Political Thought" (that is to say, a
 member of the herd), and that not everyone will
 bow to my "Word come down from the
 mountain."  If you happen to be one of those
 who cares to disagree with some point of view I
 have expressed, and you find that you are
 inadequate to the task without also having to
 hurl some insult, or other form of personal attack
 in my direction, well............I defend your First
 Amendment Right to do exactly that.  My pledge
 to you however, is that I will no longer be down
 there in the mud pit with you.  If I should choose
 to respond to an opinion from one of your future
 submissions, you have my word that I will not
 only NOT be leveling any personal attack in the 
 process, I will not be mentioning your name for
 any purpose whatever.  Late last year, I
 concluded that this is the best way to avoid
 becoming quickly mired in infantile, public
 name-calling contests.  I challenge/encourage
 all of you to take this path as well, but whether
 or not you do, I hope this clears up any
 misunderstandings that may have existed about
 my pledge, my challenge, or my accountability
 concerning submissions to "The Sandbox."

              ---John Allen (Class of `66

Pulse Polls
  From Gary Behymer (64)

******************************************
Political items of interest.

ANOTHER PULSE POLE, please take the time to vote.

Mark Booker forwarded me this Pulse Poll about
the Hanford Reach.  I would  encourage everyone
to take the pole, as of June 10, 2000.  74.2 percent
are in favor of   the Hanford Reach being desig-
nated as a national monument and and 25.8 percent
are against the Hanford Reach being designated
as a national monument.

http://www.tri-cityherald.com/hanfordreach/index.html
*****
Here is another 'pulse poll' concerning the removal of
dams to save fish.
http://www.wweek.com/html/newsall.html
                      ~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
                          - 69 -
***************************************
***************************************

********************************************
THE SANDBOX ~ Issue #70 ~ July 9, 2000

               "There is no wealth but life."
                John Ruskin, 1819 - 1900
                           Essay iv, 77

                      ~ ` ~ ` ~ ` ~ ` ~ ` ~

Look Who's Talking today!

      "I almost always enjoy reading Dick's letters,
 even though we almost never agree. I enjoy
 reading George Will for the same reason- I almost
 never agree with him either, but his positions are
 always well- mapped out and very articulate."

                     - Marc Franco `66

        "The two words "Article Forwarded" should
 set off alarm bells.  The admonition at the end to
 send the message to everyone you know should
 set off the air raid sirens."

                       - Jerry  Lewis `73

        "Only 5 more months to put up with him and
 if the good people of New York send his wife to
 the Senate woe be unto all of us."

                       - Steve Carson `58

        "One example which goes to prove Buckley's
 point might be all those genius scientists at the
 Los Alamos National Weapons Lab who have
 been "too smart" to be bothered with security
 procedures for the safeguarding of our nuclear
 secrets."

                    - John Allen `66

                   ~ ` ~ ` ~ ` ~ ` ~ ` ~

      The SANDBOX, Issue #70, Salutes
                 The Class of 1970!

To get to the 1970 Home Page, go to:
    All-Bomber-Links-
    http://www.bigfoot.com/~RichlandBombers
    When you click on 1970, you will find:

Reunions past & present, "Missing," "In Memory,"
 Class of 70: Years '57 - '69, and 30th Reunion
 Info, (coming up soon!)

Many of you will enjoy the 20th reunion slide
 show on this site!.  I'm impressed once again with
 the fact that so many Col-Hi/RHS grads did the
 whole think together, K through 12!

                           ~ ` ~ ` ~ ` ~ ` ~

Here's More Of  
                     What We're Talking About Today:

Subj:   Reply to Dick Epler: Views on Clintonism
From:   Marc Franco (66)
Reply-to: mfranco@sttl.uswest.net

I almost always enjoy reading Dick's letters, even
 though we almost never agree. I enjoy reading
 George Will for the same reason- I almost never
 agree with him either, but his positions are always
 well- mapped out and very articulate. That's how I
 feel about Dick's letters. There are some things in
 your letter, Dick, in the #68 edition, that I did not
 quite agree with. I suspect that I have not
 explained myself as well as I would like to- not the
 first time, unfortunately. If I did not make myself
 clear to you, then surely I left other people
 confused as well.

     You compared my use of the term "Clinton
 Hater" with that used by Hillary, as a deflection of
 criticism of Clinton. Actually, Dick, I had intended
 no such thing. I meant exactly what I said. For
 example, I often listen to KVI radio here in the
 Seattle area. KVI is easily the most right- wing
 Conservative sounding board in the entire area.
 (Conservatives often claim that the Media is all
 liberal and that there is no one out there to
 represent their views. Actually, there are numerous
 Conservative columnists and talk- show hosts- it's
 not hard to find them. On the other hand, I
 certainly would not argue with the fact that the
 Media is mostly liberal. ) Anyhow, I sometimes
 listen to Michael Savage, who I consider to be
 basically rabid. Among the nicer things that he has
 said about Clinton is that he (Clinton) has left us
 only one step short of being like Nazi Germany.
 That, to me, is nutty stuff. There are many, many
 more savage comments from him and from other
 similar talk- show hosts. These people are Clinton-
 haters. 

    There was a political rally here in Seattle a few
 years ago, and Hillary was the speaker.
 Conservatives in the crowd weren't just booing,
 they were yelling- "Kill the bitch!" and other
 genuinely nasty  comments that have no place in a
 supposedly two- party system. These people are
 certainly Clinton- haters. There is at least one
 contributor to this board- everybody knows who it
 is- who does not just disagree with Clinton- he
 makes frequent comments such as comparing
 Clinton and his people to rats scurrying in the
 garbage dump on a Saturday night. This goes well
 beyond normal political criticism, and as such,
 cannot be taken seriously. This person is a Clinton-
 hater.

     I have never had a quarrel with people who do
 not like Clinton. There are lots of things to dislike,
 and not just the Monica affair. But I absolutely
 distance myself from those people similar to the
 ones I have just mentioned, who simply are too
 rabid for normal discussions. It's possible to
 disagree with somebody without hating him. You
 mentioned the Reagan haters, for example.
 Actually, I don't remember the degree of hate for
 Reagan being anything near what there is for
 Clinton- but maybe I'm wrong there. I just don't
 remember. However, I was certainly one of the
 ones who did not care for Reagan- I found many
 of his policies to be simplistic. But not for a second
 did I "hate" the man. He was still my President. I
 think that was true for most people. And I actually
 think it is true for most people today. Many
 people, including myself, do not approve of
 Clinton and cannot wait for his term to be finished.
 But we simply do not go along with the more
 extreme members of the population in their hate-
 filled diatribes. I was definitely not trying to
 emulate Hillary in my use of the term "Clinton-
 haters." 

    Later in the letter, Dick, you mentioned that until
 Clinton came along, there were no school
 shootings, no athletes choking their coaches, etc.
 Dick, that may well be true, but I think it is a real
 stretch to pin that on Clinton. Your comment is
 absolutely accurate when you said that Clinton has
 helped to legitimize bad behavior. One would have
 to be blind to not be aware of that. But to go from
 "bad behavior" to shooting up schools and pinning
 that on Clinton is a connection that I really do not
 accept. We were heading in those directions
 anyhow. I really suspect that Latrell Spreewell did
 not first look to see what Clinton was doing before
 deciding to choke Carlesimo. The USA has always
 been one of the most violent countries in the
 Western World. What Clinton has done is certainly
 not helpful. But do we really think that without
 Clinton in office, there would have been no school
 shootings, no disaffected postal workers shooting
 up their offices, etc? That Clinton has legitimized
 bad behavior- yes. That he can be blamed for acts
 of radical criminal behavior- no.

    I must also protest your comment that liberals
 have a fear of a return of Reagan government, and
 so we will vote for any Democrat against any
 Republican. I can't speak for other people, but I
 will vote for anybody who will support abortion
 rights, gun control, strong defense, and a fair
 foreign policy. In the primaries here in this state in
 March, I voted for McClain over Bill Bradley, who
 I also liked quite a bit. When George Bush Sr. won
 the Presidency in 1988, I had no problems with
 that. By any standard, Bush was a highly qualified,
 intelligent, experienced candidate. When the
 Republicans took over the Congress in 1994, I
 actually told the leading Conservative on this
 board that I welcomed the take- over by the
 Republicans, because the Democrats had been in
 control for too long, and I did not think that was
 healthy for anybody. There should always be a
 little give- and- take. The point of all these
 examples is that I do not think it to be a fair or
 accurate statement that liberals have a fear of a
 Republican government. All people vote for what
 they want- if the "wrong" people win, then they
 simply wait it out, as we all are for Clinton right
 now, and hope for better results next time. 

    Finally- this letter is way too long- you
 mentioned that the Elian incident was one of 
 numerous methods by which Clinton has weakened
 the constructive influence of parents, schools, and
 churches. Maybe you could amplify on that in the
 future. It is unclear to me how he has done that,
 other than through his own misbehavior. However,
 I would like to say that I agreed with the Elian
 decision. Conservatives, of all people, have always
 preached "family values", as if nobody else had
 any. It has now been made clear that family values
 only extend to non- communist cultures. In other
 words, if WE agree with the home government,
 then family values are important. Otherwise, take
 the kid away from his only parent, and let him
 grow up right, by gosh. I disagree with the concept
 in general- I think parental rights should Always
 take precedence, assuming the parent is a good
 parent. However, many Americans are simply
 ignoring the concept that many people in the world
 do not exactly think that America is the greatest
 place in the world to raise a child. Easy access to
 guns, low educational standards, high crime rate
 compared to other similar countries, etc. There are
 numerous reasons why letting Elian's father have
 back his own child were correct. Possibly one may
 not agree with this. That's ok- but to automatically
 assume that because one doesn't  agree with
 something, then Clinton is screwing up our
 society- well, I just don't want to go there. I have
 said many times on this board- Clinton has made
 tons of mistakes, but he has also done some nice
 things as President. Not all of the mistakes are
 crimes against Nature- some of his policies are
 simply things we don't agree with, and that's all. 

    Dick- this letter was way too long- but I felt a
 need to explain myself better than I apparently had
 before. If you- and anybody else- are still reading
 after all this time, then I hope that my positions are
 a little more clear than they were before. Thanks
 for your careful reply to my earlier letter.


                     - Marc Franco (66) 

                                 ~ ~ ~

From:   Steve Carson (58)
SteveNitro@aol.com
Subj: Reply To Bob Carlson

Much of what you say is true and can not absolve
 William J. Clinton of debasing the Presidency. A
 BJ in the Oval Office is NOT the total indictment
 of this person.  I don't like him, I don't like the
 influence he has had on my Grandchildren, I don't
 like the impact he has had on society, fostering a
 very deep mistrust of government, and I don't like
 his socialist policies.  He has damaged his family,
 the institution of marriage and the rule of law in
 our great country.  Only 5 more months to put up
 with him and if the good people of New York send
 his wife to the Senate woe be unto all of us.

                      - Steve Carson (58)  

                                 ~ ~ ~

Subj: Articles Forwarded Should Set Off Alarm
         Bells and Air Raid Sirens
From:   Jerry  Lewis `73
jlewis@owt.com

Quoting from Sandbox #69A:
   "Subj:   Freedom Is Never Free
    From: Linda Reining Pitchford (64)
    Wabbithabit@aol.com

   "With the Fourth of July rapidly approaching it's
    good to reflect on its real meaning and the
    sacrifices others have made for our  benefit. So, I
     thought I'd pass this along.

    "Article Forwarded:

    "Have you ever wondered what happened to the
    56 men who signed the Declaration of  
    Independence?"

The two words "Article Forwarded" should set
 off alarm bells.  The admonition at the end to
 send the message to everyone you know should
 set off the air raid sirens.

While the article is not totally false, it is overly
 simple and plays loose with the facts. My
 favorite debunking site, The Urban Legends
 Reference Pages, calls it 'turning history into
 glurge'. Read the whole thing at: 
http://www.snopes.com/spoons/glurge/declare.htm 
There are references at the bottom and another link
 that debunks some of the posting at 
http://www.stanardgroup.com/talk/_disc1/00000358 .htm

If people want to send messages to their entire
 address list celebrating our independence and
 about how our freedoms derive in part from the
 sacrifices of the revolutionary time, a simple
 sentence or paragraph would be better than this
 kind of pablum.
 
         - Jerry  Lewis  *  jlewis@owt.com  * 
           http://www.owt.com/users/jlewis/

                              ~ ~ ~

Subj:   SMART ENOUGH???
From: John Allen `66
miles2go@cheerful.com

June 30th, 2000

During the next several months, much will be
 made by loyal Democrats about the perceived
 intellectual prowess of Vice President AlGore in
 relation to that obvious mental midget, Gov.
 George W. Bush of Texas.  In that regard, I
 would like to make a few points which you will
 likely NOT hear on ABC, CBS, NBC, the
 Clinton News Network or the late night talk   shows.

First, if the Democrat Party had been overly
 concerned about the intelligence of their
 candidate and/or the next President of the United
 States, they would be nominating Bill Bradley,
 legitimate Rhodes Scholar, instead of AlGore.

Secondly, let me quote the eminent conservative
 intellectual, William F. Buckley, who once said,
 "I would sooner be governed by the first two
 thousand names in the Boston telephone
 directory than by the faculty of Harvard.  The   
notion that the smarter you are, the better your
 judgment is, is simply exploded by experience."  
 One example which goes to prove Buckley's
 point might be all those genius scientists at the
 Los Alamos National Weapons Lab who have
 been "too smart" to be bothered with security
 procedures for the safeguarding of our nuclear
 secrets.  Another example might be an allegedly
 brilliant president who thought he was "too
 smart" to get caught fooling around with a White
 House intern in the Oval Office, and, as a result,
 has squandered over two years of his presidency,
 not to mention his place in history.  If you are
 unable to think of countless other examples from
 your own personal experience, then you just
 haven't been paying attention on your journey
 through life.

Finally, if you simply cannot separate yourself
 from the elitist attitude that a person must
 possess a certain IQ or grade point average
 in order to keep company with you, OR merit
 your vote for president, then you might want to
 chew on the fact that, grade wise, George W.
 Bush actually did BETTER as an undergraduate
 at Yale than AlGore did at his roughly equivalent
 Divinity School.  Further, it is an infrequently
 mentioned fact that Bush also earned an MBA
 from Harvard Business School.  While it is true
 that AlGore went on to graduate from the
 prestigious Vanderbilt Law School, many would
 consider it a plus that Bush is NOT a lawyer.  To
 be sure, Bush will neither be asking the American
 people to fathom what the meaning of  "is" is,
 nor insulting our intelligence with the "no
 controlling legal authority" or "itsy bitsy bladder"
 defenses for highly questionable campaign
 finance activities.

              ---John Allen (Class of '66)

                               ~ ~ ~

Questions and Answers:

Subj:   THE.SANDBOX.website
From:   LMckn21142@aol.com
To: The_Sandbox@bigfoot.com

Q: I wish to subscribe to The Sandbox. 
 Please advise how?  Linda McKnight (65)

A: You just did it, Linda.  You're subscribed!

             The_Sandbox@bigfoot.com

                              ~ ~ ~

Thanks, everyone for all your comments. Drive
 safely and use lots of sun block when you're out
 there waterskiing on your bare feet!

Coming soon to a screen near you: More
 comments from Bob and Dick and Marlene and
 Paul and that "ain't all."  Perhaps we'll also be
 hearing from you!

           -Al Parker (53) 
           Your SANDBOX Actuator
            (Or something like that.)

                               ~ 70 ~
***************************************
***************************************

********************************************
THE SANDBOX ~ Issue #71 ~ July 10, 2000
 
  "Some people drink at the fountain of knowledge.
                Others just gargle." - anon.

Look who's Talking Today!

       "Yes, keep the Hanford Reach as pristine as
 possible; just remember to wear your dosimeters
 when you frolic on the banks and swim in the
 water."

          - Bob Carlson, aka Mike Clowes (54)

        "Elitists are big world thinkers and just
 naturally gravitate to big projects, big government
 … and … big failures. More money and more time
 is always their plea for eventual success."

                         - Dick Epler `52

        "If the rest of this country has to live like
 the poor people of Texas, everybody will be dead
 broke."

                     - Paul W. Ratsch `58

                                     -

           The SANDBOX, Issue #71 Salutes:

                       The Class of 1971!

Go take a look at their Home Page which features:
Classmates * 25th Reunion Pictures * Grade School
Pictures * High School Pictures * The Year 1971 *  
Go there, even if that's not your class.  It's well 
worth the trip!

To get there, go to: All-Bomber-Links-
    http://www.bigfoot.com/~RichlandBombers  
    And click on the year, 1971.  
 
                               -

Subj:   Preserve The Reach - Keep The Dams
From:   Bob Carlson (aka) "Mike Clowes") `54
bobs@proaxis.com (Robert Carlson)

Of late, the press, both real and cyber, have been
 going on about the Hanford Reach in conjunction
 with dismantling the dams on both the Snake
 and Columbia Rivers.  I, for one think keeping the
 Hanford Reach as it is, maybe making it a federal
 preserve, is probably a good thing.  The
 dismantling of the dams, on the other hand, isn't.

Hold on, fish lovers, hear me out.  I was not in
 Richland during the flood of `48; I was instead a
 twelve-year old kid in Centralia, WA, helping to
 sandbag a few places near my home on the
 Skookumchuck River.  Our flood that year wasn't
 as big as the one that rambled down the Columbia
 past Portland, OR, where it is known as the
 "Vanport Flood."

If memory serves, there was only one dam between
 Portland and Richland, Bonneville.  Quite possibly
 because of the flood there are now seven dams
 on the Columbia between Bonneville and Grand
 Coulee.  What flooding there has been since the
 completion of the new dams has been considerably
 lower.  Granted, the salmon and steelhead runs
 have been lessened, but part of that lessening has
 been man's greed and stupidity.

Just recently some overly intelligent individual in
 the Oregon Fish and Game Department issued a
 decree that all hatchery born salmon were to be
 killed because they were doing something evil to 
 natural salmon.  Rather amazing conclusion, since
 for years both Oregon and Washington along with
 the federal government have been stocking the
 river with hatchery born salmon in order to
 supplement the dwindling native born fish.  Now
 hatchery fish are evil incarnate.  They disrupt the
 food chain.  They also probably seduce young
 salmon into joining them rather than going all the
 way back upstream. This is off the point.

Most of the dams on the river are necessary for
 economic reasons.  They supply electric power;
 they provide irrigation water; and they reduce
 flooding.  If you don't think the latter is an
 economic reason, just ask some insurance
 company about flood insurance and the cost
 thereof without the dams.  Just ask those people
 who lost their homes during some of the almost
 epic floods of the Columbia, and the epic floods of
 the thirties in the Midwest.

It would have been nice not to have dammed the
 Columbia and the Snake.  It would have been nice
 to let the salmon find their way up into Canada and
 Montana.  It would be nice to be paying 10 to 15
 times what we are now paying for electricity. 
 There would probably be a large suction pump
 somewhere on the river taking water to Los
 Angeles.

Now that we have the technology, perhaps
 something can be done to bring some form of
 salmon to the upper reaches of the Columbia. 
 Maybe a better fish ladder can be built at each of
 the other dams.  Maybe a fish elevator can be built
 at Grand Coulee.

You naysayers out there, put your minds to that
 sort of thinking.  Invent a way we can have our
 cake and eat it too.  And, before you swing the
 sledgehammer to knock down the first dam take a
 long hard look at it's functions.  If you don't live
 in the area, and cannot sympathize with people
 who annually get flooded out, try before you
 speak.

Yes, keep the Hanford Reach as pristine as
 possible; just remember to wear your dosimeters
 when you frolic on the banks and swim in the
 water.


        - Bob Carlson (aka) "Mike Clowes") `54

                                    -

Subj:   Bad Behavior
From:   Dick Epler (52)
depler@ortelco.net (Dick Epler)

For Bob Carlson (54) and Anna Durbin (69)

Many thanks for your comments. I needed that!
 Really!  Communication is hard. To keep things to
 a reasonable length, it is necessary to depend on
 common knowledge, and so, for this audience, I
 don't always explain things as well as I should.
 Nevertheless, Anna, you should know I share your
 sentiments when you write: "Keep up the good
 work, Marc (and Mike) Franco." A balanced
 dialog is necessary for effective communication.
 So maybe I ought to take the time to explain
 myself a little better.

When I say that Bill Clinton's legacy will be to
 legitimatize bad behavior I don't mean to suggest
 he is personally responsible for all the bad behavior
 in the nation. You're quite right; the citizenry are
 ultimately responsible, but it all seems to have
 accelerated on Clinton's watch. The reason, it
 seems, is that Bill, as President, has greatly
 weakened the institutions (church, school, and
 parents) that have traditionally set limits to bad
 behavior (especially for our children). And, of
 course, Bill's example as a National roll-model
 doesn't help. Bill seems quite content to let the
 entertainment industry set the limits of bad
 behavior, and indeed, he often encourages pushing
 the limits. Both parties seem to significantly benefit
 by this arrangement.

Regarding Bill's personal behavior, I'm not
 particularly concerned about the sexual nature of
 the Monica affair. With Bill Clinton, it's always
 political, and it's never "just about sex." Two
 things: First, I'm fascinated by Bill's use of power
 to acquire sex with the support of the feminists.
 It's funny … the feminists have a name Bill's
 behavior: he's a classic "sexual predator." But "the
 Hillary defense" was used to effectively mitigate
 that charge. In the parlance of the feminists, then,
 Hillary is a classic "enabler." However, if most
 feminists are forgiving of such abhorrent behavior,
 it has to be because Bill and Hillary are powerful
 people who are sympathetic to the "cause"
 irrespective of personal behavior. This is
 marvelous politics, and I'm a little disappointed it
 works so well. As a feminist acquaintance of mine
 said: "they may be SOBs, but at least they're our
 SOBs." How's that for hypocrisy!
 
Second, Bill's response to being caught was not
 only the aggressive "wag your finger" TV telecast
 to the nation but included incontrovertible
 obstruction of justice and perjury before a court of
 law … both felonious acts of the worst kind. Few
 legal scholars argue with these facts. As an
 American, it galls me to think we have an
 unindicted felon occupying the White House as our
 President.
 
But I digress. The subject for this contribution is
 bad behavior, so let me offer a definition. To me,
 bad behavior is anything that doesn't promote and
 strengthen personal relationships and/or is
 demeaning to trusted colleagues. For the benefit of
 Bill Clinton, I extend this definition to include bad
 sex whether homo or heterosexual. Again, it's not
 the homo/hetero label that's important; it's the
 behavior. Good sex of whatever variety must
 strengthen a relationship OR it is bad sex by
 definition. By this definition, there's no such thing
 as good sex outside of meaningful relationships.
 One way or another the predator eventually pays. I
 would argue that the Ten Commandments, our
 Constitution, and most law were originally crafted
 to promote dependable relationships (good
 behavior). Bill, however, continually seeks
 legislation and policies based on labels (hate
 crimes, sexual preference, minorities, etc.). Bad
 idea. Legislation based on labels is a big source of
 mischief as it tends to drive people crazy. To be
 effective, legislation generally needs to be
 restricted to the behavior you wish to reward or
 punish regardless of race, sex or creed.

Now to the specifics. You implied, Bob, that Bill
 wouldn't have been caught if the "right wingers"
 weren't out to get him as retribution for Nixon's
 treatment by the "liberal left." Actually, Bob,
 nothing could be further from the truth. Two
 things: First, Nixon was forced to resign primarily
 because key Republicans refused their support in
 defense of the Democrat's impeachment effort.
 The prevalent consensus, with hindsight, is that is
 that with unified Republican support, the
 Democrat's impeachment effort would have died in
 the House. Unlike Clinton, there were no real
 grounds for the Nixon impeachment. In the end
 conservative Republicans simply wouldn't tolerate
 bad behavior. At the time of Clinton's
 impeachment, Bob, you may recall that many in the
 media were looking for key democrats to make a
 similar "trip to the White House" to encourage
 resignation … but it didn't happen and Hillary's
 support was key.
 
Second, most legal scholars now believe the
 Monica affair would never have gone public if Bill
 would have settled early with Paula Jones. It was
 the Paula Jones legal team that exposed the
 Monica affair, along with a host of other sexual
 indiscretions. But that's always the way with
 sexual predators; sooner or later they pick on the
 wrong woman and, having had considerable
 success at intimidation, they see no reason to back
 down. My personal feeling, however, is that if it
 hadn't been Paula, it would have been someone
 else. Interestingly, it seems Bill never worried
 much about being "caught." And neither, it would
 seem, did Hillary. These guys are both into power
 and have a unique and beneficial relationship. For
 Bill, sex was part of the power equation, a perk of
 the office if you will. For Hillary, it was the chance
 to be a surrogate President as a condition of
 support. Few business partnerships have as much
 synergy.

Anna, you seem interested in hypocrisy. Question:
 What is the essential nature of hypocrisy? Is it
 hypocrisy to simply be caught doing something
 you've previously acknowledged is wrong? Well,
 maybe not. Behaviorists tell us that with the
 admission of wrongdoing, there's no hypocrisy
 since there's no inconsistency between what you
 say and how you view your actions. Of course, this
 is what we teach our children at the same time we
 teach them the difference between right and
 wrong. To the extent children learn this essential
 lesson they will eventually "grow up." What
 Gingrich and Livingston did may have been stupid
 (as adults, they knew better) but it wasn't
 hypocrisy; they admitted wrongdoing and resigned.
 No inconsistency there. Again, conservative
 Republicans don't tend to tolerate bad behavior,
 even in themselves.

By this definition, of course, Bill can't be called a
 hypocrite, as he has never acknowledged a moral
 right and wrong; as such, Bill's behavior is
 consistent with what he preaches. And therein lies
 the problem. For Bill to maintain his power, he
 must necessarily legitimize bad behavior wherever
 he can while corrupting as many of his supporters
 as possible (turning many good democrats into
 hypocrites). It's been an insidious process and will,
 I suspect, be the subject of a doctoral thesis one
 day. But the results are indisputable: as a nation,
 our culture has changed greatly during the reign of
 Bill Clinton.
 
Just two more things. Anna has chastised me for
 not listing a verifiable social scientist to back up
 my statement that conservative/authoritarian
 personalities are "hated" by those who were
 previously persecuted for bad behavior of a sexual
 or violent nature. Well, if this were a recent
 observation, I would agree a reference would be in
 order. But this is a point of view that has been
 accepted for the last 30 to 40 years (at least since
 Dr. Spock) to the point it is a reoccurring theme in
 TV, movies and books. A lot of money has been
 made promoting this theme and its many
 ramifications. Aside from the content of our
 youth's music, consider the AntiBabe,
 Body-Attitude clothing line by Jodi. Any of Mary
 Gaitskill's books (e.g. Bad Behavior) that are
 analyzed ad-nausium in various college curricula.
 And then there's the more recent somewhat
 scholarly treatise "Bad Men Do What Good Men
 Dream," by Dr. Robert I. Simon. The references,
 Anna, are too many to list.
 
Anna, you also seem troubled by my use of the
 elitist word. I assure you, simply going to Yale
 does not make one an elitist. Staying at Yale
 maybe, but then again maybe not. Though elitists
 are often characterized as professional students
 who have never had a job outside government,
 their distinguishing characteristic is that they've all
 found truth and have, amazingly, discovered the
 universal key to success, or perhaps to the perfect
 world. Elitists are big world thinkers and just
 naturally gravitate to big projects, big government
 … and … big failures. More money and more time
 is always their plea for eventual success.
 MacNamara (Vietnam War), Hillary (Universal
 Health Coverage), Bill Clinton (One World
 Government), and Karl Marx (Communism) are
 typical elitists. Elitists are famous for complicating
 the obvious and Will Rogers and Ronald Reagan
 both became quite famous at their expense. If there
 were any elitists in Reagan's administration, it was
 a well kept secret, and rightly so, as they would
 have been quickly ostracized by their brethren.
 Elitists like to be judged by their credentials and
 not by their failures; non-elitists, on the other hand,
 like to be judged by what they've accomplished
 and by their successes (they also have failures, but
 they tend to be fewer and smaller). By this
 definition, George H. may have been a Yale elitist,
 but his son George W. is most decidedly not.
 Typically, elitists "hate" GW almost as much as
 they "hated" Reagan (a good sign, actually). Note
 the quotation marks, Anna. Here, I am using the
 "hate" word to elicit an emotional response in the
 manner of modern political spin-doctors. It's a
 practice I abhor and something I avoid except to
 make a point … which you seem to have missed in
 my last contribution. 

                      - Dick Epler (52)

                                  -

Subj:   Clinton
From:   Paul Ratsch `58
pratsch@hotmail.com

Since Clinton has been in office has been some of
 the best years of life.  It will not continue if [Bush]
 gets in.  He has to take California to get elected.
 He never will. Californians are to smart to believe
 in him.  If the rest of this country has to live like
 the poor people of Texas, everybody will be dead
 broke.
                   - Paul w. ratsch `58
                   Des moines, Wa.
                   [Mariners forever]

                                -

That's it for this issue, folks.  Lot's more is on the
.way.  Keep it coming!

                     - Al Parker (53)

Please send your comments and subscription
 requests (on or off) to:
  
             The_Sandbox@Bigfoot.com

                               - 71 -
***************************************
***************************************

********************************************
THE SANDBOX ~ Issue #72 ~ July 15, 2000

        "A parliament can do any thing but make a
 man a woman, and a woman a man."
                  --2nd Earl of Pembroke
                         1534  - 1601

Look Who's Talking Today!

         "...we are still blessed(?) with certain
 freedoms, as long as we adhere to their related 
 responsibilities.  If the opposite were true, none of
 us would be engaging in the forum we are now
 using."

       - Bob Carlson (aka "Mike Clowes") '54

      "Yes, Virginia, there IS an alternative to 
 politics  as usual."

                    - Gene Trosper '85

        "...it will not be boring."

                     - Steve Carson '58

     "I thought you might be interested in this letter I
 received from Bill Witherup (53).  "LEARNING
 TO GLOW"  is an interesting anthology on some
 of the  effects of the Nuclear age."  

              - Marlene (Maness) Mulch '57

      "The four lower Snake River Dams proposed
 to be  taken out contribute nothing to flood
 control."

                     - Ron Richards ('63)

     "I still think Ringo  Starr and Yasser Arafat are
 the same person.  Think about it.  Have you ever
 seen them together at the same place?"

          - Bob Carlson (aka "Mike Clowes") '54


       "...the Sandbox is certainly  thought provoking
 and I am impressed by the entries as being well
 thought out and articulate."

                     - Steve Carson (58)

                                ~~~~~~

Here's More of What We're Talking About Today:

Subj:   Demopublicans and Republicrats
From:  Gene Trosper (85)
Reply-to: gtrosper@ez2.net

With all due respect to those who still support the
 two old parties, it's slightly amusing to see the
 back and forth charges and allegations...as if
 any real philosophical difference remains between
 the two.

I have a favorite saying: "The Democrats are racing
 100 mph toward socialism while the Republicans
 just cruise a 'sensible' 50 mph toward it". I don't
 remember who said it, but it's right on.

Democrats, the traditional civil liberties party, are
 now calling for censorship and more police
 powers.

Republicans, the traditional economic  
 conservatives, now are addicted to pork-barrel
 spending, corporate welfare and propping up the
 currencies of nations like Mexico.

The distinguishing hallmarks of both parties are
 slowly and fuzzily disappearing.

I just got back home from the Libertarian Party
 National Convention in Anaheim and was
 completely energized. Yes, Virginia, there IS an
 alternative to politics as usual.

http://www.lp.org

I'm not saying you should vote Libertarian (though
 it would be nice), but pointing out that as the
 current race toward the center has destroyed
 choice between the two. The rise of third parties
 like the Greens and Libertarians (forget the Reform
 Party...they are self-destructing on their own
 terms) are a reaction to this destruction. People
 want a clear and distinct choice.

This election ought to be interesting.

                   - Gene Trosper (85)

                             ~~~~~

Subj:    It Will Not Be Boring
From:   Steve Carson '58
SteveNitro#@aol.com

For Mark Franco - Well your list of what it would
 take to vote for someone was a mixed bag.  I
 would respectfully disagree with you on gun
 control and abortion and wonder what you mean
 by a "Fair foreign policy"?  Perhaps we should
 have a poll to tell us.  When John McCain
 announced I was pretty interested and my wife
 became an instant advocate.  This was short lived, 
 the more we heard him speak and lie to  us.  Well,
 the political season is about to get started in
 earnest and it will not be boring.  Be Well.

                       - Steve Carson '58

                                    ~

Subj: Are They Trying To Tell Us Something?
From:   Bob Carlson (aka "Mike Clowes") '54
bobs@proaxis.com
 
A New Conspiracy Theory for your consideration.

 Now that "The Fire" is out, and thankfully without
 too much loss of life, we have to be watchful for
 events around Oak Ridge.

Could it be, that by these fires D.O.E. is trying to
 tell us something. We might have to think
 seriously along these lines if a major conflagration
 should break out near Oak  Ridge in the next few
 weeks.

A fellow alum suggested to me, in jest, that
 perhaps the "gummint" was trying to destroy the
 secret records maintained in the 200-Area.

 You never know.  Besides, I still think Ringo 
 Starr and Yasser Arafat are the same person. 
 Think about it.  Have you ever seen them together
 at the same place?

 Spudnuts rule

        - Bob Carlson (aka "Mike Clowes") '54

                                   ~

Subj: "Learning To Glow" 
[Marlene (Maness) Mulch (57) 
Shares E-Mail From Bill Witherup (53) 
Reply-to: mulch@lankaster.com

Marlene Mulch Writes:

I thought you might be interested in this letter I
 received from Bill Witherup (53).  "Learning To
 Glow"  is an interesting anthology on some of the
 effects of the Nuclear age. Maybe you will want to
 do something with this subject in The Sandbox.

               - Marlene (Maness) Mulch '53

                                    ~

>From a review in Amazon.com:

 "This anthology is intended to heighten
 awareness of the continued threat [of nuclear age
 hazzards] and to encourage ways of better
 managing U.S. policy."

Bill Witherup's Letter to Marlene Mulch:

My sister Sandra Haskins (class of 59?) forwarded
 the Alumni Sandstorm where you mention the
 anthology I helped edit, LEARNING TO
 GLOW: A NUCLEAR READER, edited by John
 Bradley. U of Arizona Press, 2000.  Would like to 
 encourage more Richlanders to buy this book and
 read it.  There have not been too many book
 reviews to date, so I am just curious as to where
 you  saw it, a bookstore, an advertisement. etc.  I
 would be happy to give a talk and reading in
 Richland if I knew whom to contact, since I live in 
 Seattle not so very far away.  Have already given
 two readings from it in Seattle bookstores, and am
 giving a talk to Secular Humanists of Washington
 on July 21st, and showing a film I helped make,
 LIVING IN THE NUCLEAR AGE, Nagasaki
 Broadcasting Company 1995. ...Also have 
 forthcoming, September of 2000, my new and
 selected poems, Down Wind, Down River, West
 End Press. Since I have no idea of how to use chat 
 rooms, nor do I really have the time or inclination,
 you may forward this email to anyone else you
 choose....Thanks for the mention.  Cordially, 
 Bill Witherup (53)

                                   ~

Subj:   Some Scary Prospects
From:   Bob Carlson (aka "Mike Clowes") '54 
bobs@proaxis.com

Regardless of political leanings, this nation is
faced with the scary thought of either Bore or Gush
as the president. George Corley Wallace once said
during the Johnson / Goldwater campaign: "There's not
a dime's worth of difference between them." Needless
to say, ole' George was also in the running.

Now, I don't resent the fact that the incumbent and
 his successor (whoever that may be) is younger
 than I am.  What I resent is that they collectively
 seem to possess the intellectual capacity of a dead
 armadillo (no offense to any armadillos who might
 read this).

Apparently the only thing the two "front runners"
 are good for is fodder the monologs of the talk
 show boys.  And forgive me, if you will, I wasn't 
 aware that Clinton had his own news network.  I
 thought CNN was more of the "OJ" network, or
 was that Fox News?

We wonder and worry about the candidates, what
 they stand for(?) and why we even bother to vote. 
 Some one once wrote that the United States has
 the best government money could buy.  That
 person is probably right; we're just fortunate that it
 didn't go to the lowest bidder like other
 government contracts.

Yet, we are still blessed(?) with certain freedoms,
 as long as we adhere to their related 
 responsibilities.  If the opposite were true, none of
 us would be engaging in the forum we are now
 using.

But the more I think on it, Clinton-bashing is
 nothing more than Bush-bashing; Regan-bashing;
 Carter-bashing; Ford-bashing; well, you get the
 idea.  Seems no matter who occupies the Oval
 Office, they can't do it right.  People more than
 likely said the same things about George and Tom 
 and John (and especially his kid).  I think we have
 resolved ourselves to the idea that we don't care
 whose ox gets gored, just as long as someone's 
 does.

So far, I think the legacy of this nation is that we
 are a fractious bunch, and we'll take on  anyone
 who says we are.

Remember the implicit slogan of "King" Richard
 the First Daley, late mayor of Chicago:  "Come
 early and vote often for the candidate of  my
 choice."  Or as the late Walt Kelly said through
 his alter-ego "Pogo:"  "We have met the enemy
 and they is us."

         Bob Carlson (aka "Mike Clowes") '54 

                                   ~

Subj:   Fears misplaced.
From:   Ron Richards ('63)
G1A1S1@aol.com

To Bob Carlson (aka Mike Clowes):

The four lower Snake River Dams proposed to be
 taken out contribute nothing to flood control. 
 Your fears regarding their demise are misplaced.

                    - Ron Richards ('63)

                                  ~

Subj:   Re: The SANDBOX Issue #70
From:   Steve Carson (58)
SteveNitro@aol.com

Thanks for your work Al, the Sandbox is certainly
 thought provoking and I am impressed by the
 entries as being well thought out and articulate. 
 Keep up the good work.  

                    - Steve Carson (58)
                                 ~
Thanks, Steve.  Keep 'em coming folks!
                     - Al Parker (53)

                             - 72 -
***************************************
***************************************

********************************************
THE SANDBOX ~ Issue #73 ~ July 22, 2000

            "Perfection is the child of time."
                   - Bishop Joseph Hall
                          1574 - 1656


      The SANDBOX is illuminated by the alumni of
 Columbia (AKA) Richland High School, Richland,
 Washington. Though we are as grains of sand
 blown by the winds of time all over the world, we
 get back together here.  We trade opinions, express
 ideas and share personal experiences.  So grab a
 cup of coffee (or other beverage of your choice),
 and a Spudnut, (if you're lucky), and join our
 free exchange!

                               ~ ~ ~

       Today The SANDBOX salutes the classes of
 1972 and 1973.  To get to their home pages on the
 Internet and find E-mail addresses and pictures of
 the classes as they progressed from K to 12,   
 Just go All-Bomber-Links-
    http://www.bigfoot.com/~RichlandBombers  
    And click on the class year of your choice.

                               ~ ~ ~

Look who's talking today!

        Anna Durbin '69, appreciates Jerry Lewis's 
 debunking and Marc Franco's rationality.

        Steve Carson (58) asks, "Just how would a
 Bush Presidency break everyone?"

         Lynn-Marie Hatcher Foote ('68) Says, 
 "Okay, flog me -- but that's the way it is with some
 of us..."

         John Allen ('66), corrects himself.

         Gary Behymer (64) asks, "Will those of you
 in favor of removal of the four Snake River dams
 please sign the listing to be removed from the
 'power grid' during times of 'brown' or 'blackouts'?

        Dick Epler `52, says, "Libertarians are far too
 principled to be electable to a national office."

                         ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

Here's More of What We're Saying Today:

Subj: Durbin finds Lewis illuminating.
(See The SANDBOX Issue #70)
From:   Anna Durbin '69
golddurb@libertynet.org

Dear Jerry Lewis:  

 Thanks for your illumination.  I sent the sites to the
 people to whom I had passed on the forward.
 Great sites.  Keep keeping us debunked, please.  I
 must say that I keep agreeing with Marc Franco's
 rationality.  - Anna Durbin '69

                                ~ ~ ~

Subj:   Extreme Comments
From:   Steve Carson (58)
SteveNitro@aol.com

Paul Ratsch (58) - Paul, your comments are a bit
 extreme for me.  Just how would a Bush
 Presidency break everyone?  And how are the poor
 people of Texas any different than the poor people
 of Washington? I haven't taken a position yet but
 like some of the ideas I am hearing from the Bush
 camp.  - Steve Carson (58)

                                 ~ ~ ~

Subj:   Three Hearty "Hear, Hear's"
From:   Lynn-Marie Hatcher Foote ('68)
footay@3-cities.com

Although I always vote, I am pretty politically
 inactive otherwise.  (Okay, flog me -- but that's the
 way it is with some of us), but I really enjoy
 reading The Sandbox.  And I find I must respond
 to three of Paul Ratsch's 7/9 SANDBOX
 statements as follows:

A hearty "hear, hear!!" to the following:

   1. "If the rest of this country has to live like the
 poor people of Texas, everybody will be dead
 broke."  2. "Mariners forever." 3. Also, a hearty I
 hope you're right Paul, to:  "He [Bush] has to
 take California to get elected. He never will.
 Californians are too smart to believe in him." 
  - Lynn-Marie Hatcher Foote ‘68

                                 ~ ~ ~ 

Subj:   CORRECTION
From:  John Allen ('66)
Reply-to: miles2go@cheerful.com

I find myself in the embarrassing position of having
 to correct some information that I put out in issue
 #70 of this publication.  My far too rapid reading
 of AlGore's Bio on his official web site failed to
 notice that he was a graduate of Harvard University,
 having received a BS in Government. It
 was Gore's grades at Harvard, not Vanderbilt
 Divinity School, that were surpassed by those of
 George W. Bush during his time at Yale.  In
 addition to that mistake, I failed to take proper
 notice of the word "attended" in relation to his
 time at Vanderbilt Law School. That word is
 always code for "didn't graduate," and I failed to
 identify the nuance.  Apparently, he was unable to
 "control the legal authorities" at Vandy Law. 
 Shame on me, a good conservative, for being
 taken in by this minor manipulation.  It does
 appear however, that Gore's three semesters in law
 school (Fall '74 thru Fall '75 according to the
 registrar) were enough for him to become
 reasonably infected by the legal mindset which
 generally tends to argue, "If you can't convict
 me of it in a court of law then it didn't happen, but
 if it did happen, then it wasn't really wrong."  
 Again, I cite the "no controlling legal authority"
 and "itsy bitsy bladder" defenses for his White
 House "dialing for dollars" and "Buddhist Temple"
 fund raising abuses during the '96 presidential
 campaign.  For the record minus any judgment,
 Gore attended but also did not graduate from
 Vanderbilt Divinity School.
 
 To sum up, on the one hand we have AlGore with
 a Bachelor's Degree from Harvard, and on the
 other hand we have George W. Bush with a
 Bachelor's Degree from Yale AND a Master's
 Degree in Business Administration from Harvard. 
 Please try to keep these facts in mind when told by
 whomever that Bush is not "smart enough" to be
 president.

                       - John Allen ('66)

                                 ~ ~ ~

Subj: Re: Ron Richards... Four Snake River Dams:
 Useful for flood control in very wet years.
(See SB Issue #72)
From: Gary Behymer (64)
Reply-to: bjangary@colfax.com

You are absolutely right Ronald...the four Snake
 River Dams were not built for flood control. 
 Bottom line...but they HAVE been used for flood
 control in extreme wet years.

Will those of you in favor of removal of the 4
 Snake River dams please sign the listing to be
 removed from the 'power grid' during times of
 'brown' or 'blackouts'.

Behymer (64) from downtown Colfax, Washington.

                                 ~ ~ ~

Subj:    Electing a President
From:    Dick Epler `52
depler@ortelco.net (Dick Epler)

I'm glad to see the Libertarian Party is now
 represented in the SANDBOX by Gene Trosper
 (85). I, myself, am philosophically a libertarian,
 and Harry Browne and Ayn Rand are two of my
 favorite authors. I have most of their books
 including Harry's libertarian manifesto "Why
 Government Doesn't Work (1995). Although my
 all time favorite of Harry's is "How I Found
 Freedom in an Unfree World." All thoughtful
 readers should read these two books.

Though I believe that, given a compelling reason
 for change, Harry Browne's solutions could work,
 we're probably not quite there yet. And Harry
 knows that. Harry, being the eminent realist,
 simply wants to package a number of key ideas to
 have on the shelf for use when appropriate. But he
 also needs as many people as possible to know that
 there ARE reasonable solutions to the problems
 we face and so he became the Presidential
 Candidate for the Libertarian Party in the last
 election. After logging onto the site Gene
 referenced [ www.lp.org  ], I
 see that Harry has been nominated again … and
 has written a new "manifesto." I suspect he will
 make a reasonable impact in the arena of ideas
 wherever he campaigns. Pity he can't be part of the
 Presidential debates.
 
My understanding is that there are maybe 200
 libertarians holding elective office, but none are in
 Congress. And therein lies the problem:
 Libertarians are far too principled to be electable
 to a national office. Their solutions, based on
 principle, would dismantle much of the Federal
 Government. (Note: Harry even has a solution for
 what to do with all the federal employees that
 would be out of work.)
 
It is said neither Gore nor Bush will provide many
 details behind their plans. They tell us the details
 are complicated and difficult to understand. Well,
 that's not the case with the Libertarians. If you
 ask, the Libertarians will provide you with lots of
 detail. To them, the solutions and the details are
 easy – it's the implementation that's hard – as it is
 with most meaningful long-term solutions that call
 for fundamental change.
 
But Libertarians ARE making inroads in local
 elections and seem to be attracting support from
 previous members of the Reform Party. I wouldn't
 be surprised to discover Gene Trosper in a local
 race someday. Still the question remains: why can't
 Libertarians get elected to national office? The
 political reality is that for a Libertarian to become
 electable, (s)he'd have to utilize the existing
 electioneering industry, pander to the media, and
 adopt the same underhanded techniques as the
 major parties … in which case they would no
 longer be principled.
 
This morning, on Fox News Sunday, I listened to
 two of the Nation's top political consultants, Dick
 Morris and Susan Estrich, discuss the electabilty of
 Gore and Bush. Based on recent research, Morris
 made the following observations:
 
            45% of the people don't believe it makes
 any difference who is elected.
           The National Convention will be able to
 provide a 10% bump for an "energizing" 
 candidate, which would be a wash if the candidates
 were equal. The purpose of the conventions, then,
 is to maximize the difference by hyping an image, if
 not the candidate himself.
-          Between the convention and Election Day,
 the maximum swing expected is about 5%.
 
Some possible conclusions: Issues aren't really
 important. What are important are personalities
 (not necessarily the candidate's – gotta have those
 Hollywood types), image (the candidates), and big
 productions (the convention). Everything will be
 keyed by the convention, which will likely be more
 akin to a coronation than a decisional process. In the
 Nationals, independents aren't as important as
 the media (their candidates got eliminated in the
 primaries). Everything is crafted to achieve the
 right media spin.
 
It bothers me that all this seems to work as well as
 it does. Nevertheless, I tend to believe that, in the
 aggregate, the electorate is smarter than the
 ego-driven politicos and media generally believe.
 Given the choices available, the electorate
 generally makes a reasonable decision, but
 probably not for the reasons assumed by the
 candidates and their handlers. These days I
 estimate 45% of those that vote make their
 decision intuitively, based mostly on self-interest;
 40% are hard-core demos or repubs; and 15% vote
 issues important to the continuation of the
 Republic. To me that means 60% of the vote is
 reason based.
 
Given that, how do we wind up with a Bill Clinton?
 The answer has to do with the choices available as
 forced by the media. Faced with a choice between
 George H. or Bob Dole and Bill Clinton, the
 electorate made a reasonable choice. Why elect a
 wantabe when you can have the real thing? Only in
 Dole's case, it wasn't exactly true. Dole probably
 wasn't a Clinton wantabe, but he allowed his
 handlers and the media to define him as such. Big
 mistake. I think he could have been a good
 President and would have been electable 25 years
 ago. But he simply wasn't prepared to deal with
 the media distortions an honest campaign would
 generate. So he tried to be something he wasn't …
 and that was a mistake. I notice George W.
 doesn't have that problem; even so, because of the
 media, he's not likely to produce specifics for all
 his plans. Neither, of course, will Gore.
 
Sooo … for the 15% of us who like the big issues,
 how are we to pick a candidate in the absence of
 perfect information? Two things: First, look at
 what the man's done and try to find out who the
 real winners and losers were; and two, ignore the
 little compromises and trust consistency. That's
 what I do. My wife, on the other hand, is pure
 intuition. No analysis necessary. She thinks this
 SANDBOX thing is a big waste of time.

                    -  Dick Epler `52

                              ~ ~ ~

That's it for this issue, folks, but more people are
 already at the gates, wanting to speak their piece.
 We'll be hearing from all of them soon and just
 possibly, we'll also be hearing from you!

See you next time!    -ap

                    -73-
***************************************
***************************************

********************************************
THE SANDBOX ~ Issue #74 ~ July 29, 2000

  "Contentment is not the fulfillment of what you
 want, but the realization of how much you already
 have."  -anon


SOME OF US HAVE BEEN WONDERING-

Bob Carlson is wondering if Carter was the only
 president to escape a scandal.  "But, then I
 suppose," he continues, "there were some people
 in the Carter administration who got caught with
 their hands in the cookie jar, just  like Willie, and
 George and Ronnie, and Dick, and Jack, and Ike
 and Harry and Franklin and Herbert  and...well,
 you get the idea."

Dave Henderson is wondering,, "Did the artist
 goof in painting the B-17 bomber 'Pay Day,' or I
 wonder if the artist meant to paint the propellers
 backward on purpose.  If the latter is the case,
 maybe the artist is trying to tell us that the new
 RHS new mascot, ('Pay Day') was a step
 backward."

Mary (Ray) Henslee wonders, "...what is stifling
 students' desire to read nowadays?  It could be
 one thing or a combination of things.....our school
 system's approach, lack of time, or the   
 unprecedented availability of other forms of more
 enticing entertainment,,,"

                                  ~ ~ ~

   Issue Number 74 of The SANDBOX Salutes:

                      The CLASS of '74

You may visit the 1974 Home Page by going to 
 Http://www.bigfoot.com/~RichlandBombers
 and clicking on the year, 1974.  There you will
 find: '74 E-mail addresses, '74 Roster as of the
 20th Reunion, and '74 grade school pictures.

                        ~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~

Here's More of What We've Been Wondering
 About:  (Or should we say, "...of which we've
 been wondering.)


Subj: CLINTON BASHING AND OTHER THINGS
From:   Bob Carlson (aka "Mike Clowes") '54
karylc@juno.com

In a way it amuses me to read, and hear and see on
 TV all sorts of people going on about how bad
 William J. "Slick Willie" Clinton is.  So, he has
 poor taste in women, since when is that a crime? 
 So he indulges in a favorite male fantasy in the
 Oval Office with an intern and a cigar; doesn't he
 know that tobacco is harmful to one's health?  And
 this is a crime?  So he lied about it?  Yes, lying
 under oath is a crime regardless of extenuating
 circumstances.

At least he did not encourage and abet the breaking
 and entering of the offices of the opposition party;
 and the snooping into the private files of a
 psychiatrist (which by the way, are supposed to be
 protected from this sort of thing.)  And that
 particular President also lied about it. "I am not 
 crook."

All right, Clinton was impeached by the House; so
 was Andrew Johnson.  And both of them were
 acquitted by the Senate.  Now why were both of
 these sitting Presidents impeached; basically
 partisan politics.  It is doubtful that the "silent
 majority" cared one way or the other about why
 Johnson and Clinton were subjected to the ordeal. 
 The fascinating thing to remember is that  the
 nation was not quite one  hundred years old when
 extremist members of his own party impeached 
 Johnson.  Another hundred years were to pass
 before a president resigned before he could be
 impeached.  And only twenty years after that mess 
 another president was impeached; only this time by
 members of the opposition.

Even Milhouse might have gotten away with it,
 except for the rascally press.  If you remember, not
 too many people were interested  in the Watergate
 thing, even the majority party at the time didn't
 want anything to do with it.

And, why is reducing military expenses bad?  In
 order to have some of the toys the Pentagon Gang
 wants, something has to go.  Now there are those
 who claim that under Ronnie Raygun, that the
 military increased.  Yeah, right.  The Navy, for
 instance, had ships it couldn't man because they
 couldn't get enough people to join.  Why, do you
 ask, didn't people  want to serve their country? 
 Well, did a lot of  you?  Particularly since the draft
 was no longer in action.  I know, long hours and
 low pay, and  time away from the family and many
 other reasons.  Despite these odds, Ronnie and his
 flunky George, went ahead and damn near spent
 the country into the poor house.

No, they were not like those nasty "tax  and spend"
 Democrats.  They just spent and didn't care where
 the money came from.  Funny though, the only
 good thing that came of all the spending on
 military toys; the Russians, in order to keep up, did
 spend their government into the poor house.  How
 lucky can you be?

But it seems that, as a nation, we have a propensity
 to dwell on the superfluous things.  The O.J. trial,
 Elian, Clinton's sexual proclivities, Jackie Kennedy
 remarrying, JFK, Jr.'s plane crash.  I think people
 should invest their money  in "talking heads"
 instead of .com's. Although at present the two are
 running a dead heat.

But remember this, Clinton is not the first 
 president to be swayed by the trappings of  power,
 and even to be seduced by it.  Nor is he  the first to
 have scandals during his administration.  I 
 sometimes think Carter was the only president to
 escape a scandal.  The Iran hostage situation was
 not a scandal, it was a  national tragedy.  But, then
 I suppose there were some people in the Carter
 administration who got caught with their hands in
 the cookie jar, just  like Willie, and George and
 Ronnie, and Dick,  and Jack, and Ike and Harry
 and Franklin and Herbert and...well, you get the
 idea.

The simple solution is "vote the ******'s out of
 office" and put new ones in.  And if you haven't
 voted: Shut the **** up!  Them that doesn't vote,
 doesn't have a say in how the government screws
 up.

If you have voted, and are offended by this,
 remember this is only my opinion and I'm
 welcome to it.

        - Bob Carlson (aka "Mike Clowes") '54

                               ~ ~ ~

Subj: THE NEW RHS MASCOT
From: David Henderson 
hdavid@pacbell.net

While I was up in Richland, during the R2K event,
 I had the opportunity to hold a discussion with a
 number of people about the new RHS mascot; the
 B-17 bomber, "Pay Day."

The impression I got from these discussions was
 that some people in power at RHS wanted a more
 politically correct mascot.  However, the powers-
 that-be did not want to change the schools name,
 "Bombers."  So the powers-that-be selected a
 Boeing B-17 bomber, "Pay Day" as the school's
 new mascot.

While looking at the painting of the B-17 bomber
 "Pay Day", on the wall of the gym, I noticed
 something was not quite right, about the painting
 of the bomber "Pay Day".   After I got back to San
 Jose, CA,  I got my hands on a copy of  a B-17
 pilot's manual, and some old W.W.II motion
 pictures of B-17 bombers in action.

I discovered that the artist had painted the propellor
 blades, and their rotation (on the B-17 bomber
 "Pay Day") backwards.   The pilots manual
 states that the P&W engines, on a B-17  bomber
 rotate clockwise as seen from the cockpit.  That
 means if a person was standing in front of a
 "Pay Day" they would see the propellers rotating
 Counter Clock Wise and the leading edge of the
 propellers would be opposite what they are now.

I also noticed that the rotation of the propellers, on
 the other B-17 bombers, in the painting  appear to
 be installed correctly and rotating in the proper
 direction.

Did the artist goof in painting the B-17 bomber
 "Pay Day", or I wonder  if the artist meant to paint
 the propellers backward on purpose.  If  the
 latter is the case, maybe the artist is trying to tell us
 that the new RHS mascot, ("Pay Day") was a step
 backward.

I would be curious to hear from anybody who
 knows about the painting on the gym wall.

              - Dave Henderson Class of 60)

                             ~ ~ ~

Subject: REVAMPING OUR SCHOOL'S
 CURRICULUM (Or should we say, "...our
 schools' curricula?" 
From:  Mary (Ray) Henslee (61)
mah@satx.net

The Running Start Program sounds like it definitely
 has some merit and certainly offers food for
 thought.  I think that it is an excellent concept, but
 I think that it should be implemented for the
 betterment of all students and not just a select few. 
 It could be offered right in the high schools and
 does not have to replace two years of high school
 by farming students out to universities and an
 environment that they may not be mature enough
 to handle.  A program that would offer those who
 are not planning to go to college the opportunity
 to prepare for a career and those who do plan to
 go to college a head start on their major course of
 study would be ideal in my opinion.

No one can instill self-esteem in another
 person.....self-esteem must come from within
 through personal accomplishments that make us
 feel good about ourselves.  Schools should offer
 the opportunity for each student to choose their
 course of study at some point so that they can
 discover the extent of their talents and gain
 self-esteem through the development of their
 talents.  If emphasized and taught correctly, 10
 years of being taught reading, writing, and
 arithmetic should be sufficient and the other two
 years or at least the last year of high school could
 consist solely of electives in ones desired course of
 study.  Students would have an incentive to stay in
 school and learn if they were being prepared to
 step into a career after graduation.  

Undoubtedly changes need to be made in our
 school systems, but the question will probably
 remain for many years to come as to what those
 changes should be.  There are those who may
 argue that Johnny can't read and write so the basics
 must continue to remain in place all through high
 school.  Johnny can read, but he can't write
 because writing skills are mainly obtained through
 reading and he doesn't have the desire to read
 much these days.  I think that it is evident by the
 many prolific writers in this forum as well as in the
 Sandstorm that at one time Johnny did read and
 learn how to write.  Therefore what is stifling
 students' desire to read nowadays?  It could be
 one  thing or a combination of things.....our school
 system's approach, lack of time, or the   
 unprecedented availability of other forms of more
 enticing entertainment?  The Harry Potter
 phenomena should tell us all something. 
 Youngsters being sparked to read a 700-page book
 without prodding proves that Johnny will choose
 to read when enticed.  Hopefully after the Harry
 Potter books are put back on the shelf, Johnny will
 decide reading can be as much fun as a video
 game.

A lot of the mandatory curriculum in high school as
 well as in college is not conducive to succeeding in
 life personally or in a career and probably needs to
 be revamped so that minds are not overloaded with
 unnecessary information.  We can only retain so
 much and most students probably aren't selective in
 what they try to retain.  Right now they are
 legislating more mandatory higher math in high
 school.  I foresee a lot of frustrated students who
 may possibly not graduate as a result.  Higher math
 such as Calculus is not for everyone and should be
 an elective.  

I am convinced after reading this forum for one
 year now that Richland's alumni could move
 mountains or at least a few politicians with a pen
 and a piece of paper.  Thanks, Al, for giving us the
 opportunity to vent.  It is very therapeutic when
 issues are beyond our control.

                 - Mary (Ray) Henslee (61)

                                ~ ~ ~

Thanks, John, Bob, David and Mary, for your
 comments today.  Come on, everyone, join us in
 the ongoing conversations here!  You can send   
 your well-framed thoughts to: 

              The_SANDBOX@bigfoot.com

 Or: hit the reply button and talk right back to us.

                       - Al Parker (53)
              Your SANDBOX Moderator

                               - 74 -
***************************************
***************************************

********************************************
THE SANDBOX ~ Issue #75 ~ August 18, 2000

     "Live only for today, and you ruin tomorrow."
                         - C. Simmons

               The SANDBOX@bigfoot.com
       http://www.bigfoot.com/~The_Sandbox


Look Who's Talking Today:

"After the fiascoes that were the Robert Bork and
 Clarence Thomas Supreme Court confirmation
 hearings, I thought  that never again would it be
 possible for the leadership of the Democrat Party
 to bottom themselves in terms of a thoroughly
 mean-spirited and hypocritical hatchet job."
                         - John Allen '66

"For the first year the Republicans controlled
 Congress (1995), many projects at Hanford were
 cut and many people lost their jobs.  Myself and
 thousands were laid off during those bloody days."
                        - Jim Moran (87)

"The promise of a Bismuth-213 therapy is
 in the use of alpha particles to destroy the
 *residual* cancer cells that remain in the blood and
 bone marrow after chemo has been completed."
                          - Dick Epler '52


Also: 
   Irene Hays answers a question about "wondering."

                                ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Issue #75 of The SANDBOX salutes:
                               The Class of 1975!

The Richland Bombers Class of 1975 welcomes
 you to visit their site on the web.  There you will
 find, Class of '75 Bios, R2K Reunion, Bomber
 Sports, Music Makers, Bomber Photo Gallery,
 National Champions, Class Roster and grade
 school pictures. The Webmeister, Jim Rice,
 jrice@sojourners.com, wants more bios of 1975
 class members.  Check out the page for guidelines!

                                 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Here's More of What We're Talking About Today:

Subj:    WILD DOGS
From:   John M. Allen
Reply-to: miles2go@cheerful.com

Wednesday, 26 July 2000

After the fiascoes that were the Robert Bork and
 Clarence Thomas Supreme Court confirmation
 hearings, I thought  that never again would it be
 possible for the leadership of the Democrat Party
 to bottom themselves in terms of a thoroughly
 mean-spirited and hypocritical hatchet job; not
 until yesterday when Dick Cheney was picked for
 the second spot on the GOP ticket in this Fall's
 presidential election.  Having been given a two day
 head start by some half lucky research on the part
 of NBC's Lisa Meyers, the Dems were out in force
 with their Gore Campaign "talking points."  Many
 of them found it necessary to actually read their
 drivel; having been too lazy to commit a few points
 to memory.  To hear them recite the same
 criticisms ad nauseam, one would believe Cheney
 to be the political equivalent of the AIDS virus,
 about to infect the entire country.  Of course these
 claims are nothing more than preposterous
 distortions of the truth and, more often, complete
 fabrication.  Those who bother to pay attention to
 politics in this country know full well that the
 strategy would have been the same regardless of
 whom Mr. Bush would have chosen to be his
 running mate.  One might have hoped for
 enough common courtesy from the libs to wait at
 least a day or two with their rabid attacks, rather
 than boorishly barging their way into the
 dinner party to demean the food, the wine, the
 sterling flatware and the centerpiece right in the
 face of the host and his guests.  The fact that
 the comments have been so extreme, not only in
 terms of tone, timing and content, but also in their
 carpet bombing style, graphically demonstrates
 that the Democrat leadership has become little
 better than a pack of wild dogs chasing a deer. 
 One has to wonder how these hacks don't seem to
 feel the least embarrassment since, just over a
 decade ago, most of them were singing Cheney's
 praises to the heavens while the Senate voted 92-0
 to confirm him as Secretary of Defense.
 Additionally, many of them including the Party's
 new standard bearer, AlGore, were casting the
 same votes in Congress (on gun control, abortion,
 etc)  for which they now criticize Mr. Cheney.  
 The important difference here, is that those "deep,
 personal convictions" held by Mr. Cheney 15-20
 years ago, actually WERE deep, personal
 convictions rather than whimsy to be thrown into
 the political winds just prior to each election.  Mr.
 Gore has flip-flopped on almost every "deep,
 personal conviction" he has ever held, simply to
 keep getting elected or even to get more TV time
 (as in the case of the Senate deliberations just prior
 to the Gulf War). Character still counts and
 Cheney, unlike half his opposition in this
 election, has it in spades (and for those of you who
 are overly politically correct, that's a CARD
 GAME analogy).  Mr. Gore and many of his
 faithful have simply been exposed to Bill Clinton
 far too long and have come down with a character
 sickness for which there will never be a cure.

In this forum alone, there has been no small amount
 of rhetoric and vitriol from the left of the political
 spectrum about how mean-spirited
 Republicans/Conservatives are in their approach to
 politics.  Obviously, there is no shortage of that
 commodity in the "care more," "feel good" party. 
 I suggest it will be worthy of note to hear what
 Mr. Cheney has to say regarding AlGore's running
 mate once HE is announced.  My guess is that if he
 makes any comment at all, it will initially be
 respectful at the very least.  It is high time that 
 hard core liberals finally admit, as Alan
 Derschowitz did on national TV, that they regard
 conservatives almost in total, as evil, uncaring
 people, and that they have never seen one for
 whom they would cast their vote.  I challenge
 any liberal (or self-proclaimed moderate) who
 challenges this conclusion, to first inform us which
 conservative(s), seeking any office above the level
 of dog catcher, they have ever voted for.

As for Bush's judgment in picking Cheney, I further
 suspect that it is only the first indication of his
 intent, upon his election, to return to the White
 House an Administration fully staffed with serious
 and thoroughly competent ADULTS, instead of
 the current "most ethical Administration in history"
 which "looks like America."  Even when George
 W. asks his dad for some free advice, at least he is
 asking one of only five people alive in the world
 who has ever held the job he is seeking.  Somehow
 that behavior seems infinitely more reasonable than
 paying $15,000/month to some extreme left-wing
 bimbo to tell him what color and style of clothing
 to wear so he can be PERCEIVED as an "Alpha
 Male."  Only Bill Clinton and AlGore would be so
 arrogant as to imply that they have all the answers
 any President needs, and can do without the very
 best experience and advice available to help run the
 country.  And if he were being totally honest (what
 a joke), Clinton would claim that he really didn't
 need Gore either; not beyond the Constitutional 
 requirement for a VP.

Finally, because she was included in the parade of
 Cheney detractors yesterday, I must ask if there
 has ever been anyone in the U.S. Senate more
 embarrassingly ignorant than Washington State's
 "mother in tennis shoes."   Shame on the 
 Washington voters who were so careless in helping
 elect her, and willing to prove that they will vote
 for ANY Democrat, however lacking in
 qualification and ability!  Incidentally, it appeared
 yesterday that Patty could afford to spend a little
 more time in those tennis shoes and a little less
 time in the Senate Dining Room.  Now all
 of that may be less than kind, but at least it's true.
              - John Allen (Class of '66)

                             ~ ~ ~

Subj:    Response to Dick Epler
To: Jim Moran (87)
jpmoran@cyberhighway.net

[Note: For clarity, the article by Epler referred to
 here by Moran, was published in an earlier edition
 of The Alumni SANDSTORM, (Not The
 SANDBOX).  As a clarifying reference, Epler's
 SANDSTORM article will be repeated here,
 following Moran's comments regarding it.]

James Moran wrote:

I would like to correct one thing which Dick Epler
 had mentioned about FFTF.  It was not shut down
 by the "present administration", but it was shut
 down under the Bush Administration.   For one
 short year after the Energy Secretary of the Bush
 Administration sang the worthy praises of FFTF,
 he  proposed and began the work to shut down
 FFTF.   I had many friends and relatives who
 worked at FFTF during this time, and they were
 very upset by this.  Also, Dick, if you stick to the
 claim that , yes it was officially shut down in 1995
 (even though  it was years in the works), 
 remember who controlled congress.  The
 Republicans.  For the first year the Republicans
 controlled Congress (1995), many projects at
 Hanford were cut and many people lost their jobs. 
 Myself and thousands were laid off during those
 bloody days.  My, how people do have short
 memories.
                     - Jim Moran (87)

Original Message Referred to as published in The
 SANDSTORM:
 
From: Dick Epler (52)
mailto:depler@ortelco.net

RE: Sandstorm Radiation Article (referenced by Kim 
Edgar Leeming (79) in 8/1/00 Sandstorm.

Recently, Rick Maddy (67) expressed an interest in
 more articles on nuclear radiation (7/29/00). Then
 on 8/1/00, Kim Edgar Leeming (79) drew our
 attention to the Associated Press news piece
 "Nuclear Waste May Help Cancer." So I thought
 I'd offer the following observations.

For those who may not have read the news article,
 the author, Duncan Mansfield, is reporting on the
 use of Bismuth-213 to treat patients with acute
 myeloid leukemia for which the cure rate is only 30
 to 40% using aggressive chemotherapy. If you've
 seen the Julia Roberts movie, Dying Young, you'll
 be able to appreciate the sadness of going through
 such a debilitating therapy (chemo) only to suffer
 continued relapses, eventually resulting in "dying
 young." The promise of a Bismuth-213 therapy is
 in the use of alpha particles to destroy the
 *residual* cancer cells that remain in the blood and
 bone marrow after chemo has been completed.
 NOTE: Chemotherapy has been described as a
 technique that brings the patient as close to death
 as possible without succeeding.

The decay of Bi-213 produces an alpha particle
 (i.e., a Helium nucleus) with an energy of 5.9 Mev
 that is very effective in destroying living tissue in
 the near (very near) vicinity. But it can't tell the
 difference between a cancer cell and a healthy cell,
 so the trick is to attach the Bismuth isotope to
 something that can. The technique used by the
 researchers at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering
 Cancer Center in New York is to attach the
 Bismuth-213 isotope to cancer antibodies
 produced by the patient's own immune system.
 This allows the "targeted" destruction of specific
 cancer cells and is called "alpha particle
 immunotherapy." Most important the technique
 has general application to a host of other cancers
 besides leukemia for which human testing will
 be done (necessary for certification). In theory, it
 could also result in eliminating chemotherapy
 entirely, but again that hasn't been tested yet.
 Another advantage of Bismuth-213 is that its half-

 life of 46-minutes is sufficient to do the work in a
 reasonable time, while producing by-products that
 are then eliminated in the urine.

The AP's spin was to tie this marvelous medical
 research to "nuclear waste," which if you're a
 "downwinder" evokes visions of bubbling tanks
 and brown clouds of radioactive Iodine (scary
 stuff). In truth, "waste" is a bit misleading in this
 case. The source of Bismuth-213 is Oak Ridge's
 stored Uranium-233 that was intentionally
 produced for use in commercial nuclear reactors.
 Only after the activists destroyed the promise of
 producing electrical power "too-cheap-to-meter"
 did the U-233 become "waste." And so it has been
 stored for these many years at Oak Ridge at a cost
 of $15 million per year. Recently DOE has
 authorized the extraction of Bi-213 from the
 U-233 > >storage vault for cancer therapy.
 One of the things DOE has not authorized,
 however, is the restart of the FFTF reactor at
 Richland for the production of almost any isotope
 the medical community could desire. The FFTF
 research reactor has a neutron flux spectrum
 unmatched by anything existing in the world in
 1995 (when I retired -- don't know about today). It
 is an extremely versatile and safe reactor and it's a
 pity it was shut down in 1991 (I think).    Unofficially,
 it was shut down for two reasons: 1) Washington State 
 doesn't want anything to do with nuclear stuff; and 2) 
 the present Administration wants to build a new reactor
 for producing Tritium and medical isotopes in 
 Tennessee (wonder why Tennessee?).
                         - Dick Epler (52)

                                ~ ~ ~

In Issue Sandbox Issue #74, I said:
"Here's More of What We've Been Wondering
 About:  (Or should we say, '...of which we've
 been wondering.'")

Irene Hays, IreneHays@aol.com, suggested saying
 it like this:  "...about which we've been
 wondering." 
  That certainly works for me!  Also,
 if one of those things about which you've been
 wondering includes wondering when an article
 you've sent will be published, just be patient for a
 while longer.  Much of my relocation work is
 finished and I am hoping to accelerate the number
 of issues over the next few weeks in order to catch
 up on all the important mail you've sent.

Please remember to include your class year and
 former name, (if applicable,) in all correspondence
 and subscription requests.
                        -Al Parker (53)
                Your SANDBOX moderator

                                - 75 -
***************************************
***************************************

********************************************
THE SANDBOX ~ Issue #76 ~ August 19, 2000

         "Talking About What You Care About."

      "No man ever became great or good except 
            through many and great mistakes."
                           - Gladstone

                           Subscribe at:
               The SANDBOX@bigfoot.com
             or read and reply on the web at:
        http://www.bigfoot.com/~The_Sandbox
        

Here's what we're talking about today:

     "I am not saying if bush was elected pres.
 That it would break everyone. I am saying that it
 would reduce the standard of living of the blue
 collar worker."
                     - Paul W. Ratsch (58)

     "When I was growing up, we had lots of
 "Horatio Alger" type stories of people who
 struggled against the odds, but who maintained
 their integrity and character to eventually succeed.
 Of course, many of the stories, like "the signers"
 were patriotic.  Many historians credit these stories
 as a major influence on the early success of our
 nation."
                          - Dick Epler (52)

     "When you look at the B-17 bomber "Pay Day,"
 painted on the wall of the RHS gym, you are
 struck by how much more colorful it looks, when
 compared to its companions in the same painting.  
 I was struck by it's bright yellow tail, and yellow
 wing tips.  I asked myself, what sane pilot would
 fly so colorful an airplane deep into enemy
 territory (Germany).
                      - David Henderson (60)

     "I try to look at the actual performance of the
 candidates.  So far I can't find anything that Gore
 has actually done, while Bush traded Sammy Sosa. 
 My research continues....."
                   - Mike Franco (1970)

     "Don't know the author but my friend, an
 Orthopedic surgeon, and my husband, a
 veterinarian use the expression now and then."
               - Peggy Lewis Johnson '62

     "...for heaven's sake don't cancel my
 subscription!"
                         - Chris Bolkan (72)

                            - - - - - - - -

Issue #76 of The SANDBOX salutes:
             The Class of 1976!

Check the site for E-mail addresses, To get there:
Go to: Http://www.bigfoot.com/~RichlandBombers
 and click on the year, 1976.  

                            - - - - - - - -

Here's More of What We're Talking About Today:

Subj:   BUSH
From:   Paul W. Ratsch (58)
pratsch@hotmail.com

Steve, I am not saying if bush was elected pres.
 That it would break everyone. I am saying that it
 would reduce the standard of living of the blue
 collar worker.  Texas is one of the worst
 nonunion states in the nation.  Right to Work
 state; no Davis/Bacon act; no prevailing wage
 laws; etc. The blue collar worker pays the taxes,
 the rich won't and the poor can't!  Take Some
 time to check it out.

The standard of living is high in Western
 Washington and California and we would like to
 keep it that way.
                     Paul W. Ratsch (58)
                     Des Moines, WA.
                     [mariners forever]

                              ~ ~ ~

Subj:    A Nation's Culture
            and the Stories We Tell Our Children
From:   Dick Epler (52)
           depler@ortelco.net

In Issue 69A, the "Wabbithabit" (affectionate
 screen name for Linda Reining Pitchford (64)
 posted a 4th of July story regarding the 56 signers
 of the Declaration of Independence. Then in Issue
 70, Jerry Lewis (73) cautions us to check the web
 for the "real story." Anna Durbin (69), in Issue 73,
 agrees. So do I!
 
Though I enjoyed the article Linda posted, I
 couldn't bring myself to accept it as the complete
 story. It was rather like one of the patriotic
 children's stories (folklore) I'd been taught when
 growing up. As Jerry pointed out "While the
 article is not totally false, it is overly simple and
 plays loose with the facts." I tend to believe that's
 true of most of the stories we teach our children as
 part of the culture we wish to support. And being a
 kid myself, I still enjoy them.
 
Nevertheless, getting a little closer to the truth is
 always a good thing, so I went to Jerry's
 "debunking site" to learn the truth. Actually I went
 to a number of sites. I read snopes.com's "Turning
 History into Glurge." It was written by James
 Elbrecht who obviously wants to discredit
 patriotism.  That's been a popular theme in
 academia the last 30 years. Elbrecht based his
 diatribe on an email from a female history
 professor (Harlowe) whose analysis was
 necessarily incomplete as it hurriedly addressed
 only a few of the inconsistencies. So I continued
 my search. I wanted to see if I could find a
 reasonable source. Using www.metacrawler.com
   it didn't take
 long.
 
What I found is that the father of Rush Limbaugh
 III (the talk show host) would, as Rush was
 growing up, occasionally give a speech titled "The
 American's who Risked Everything" before the
 citizens of Cape Girardeau, Missouri. In
 September 1997, Rush honored his father by
 transcribing the speech into words and publishing
 it in "The Limbaugh Letter." It was later edited
 and abbreviated by Reader's Digest (July 1998).
 But it was also rewritten and widely distributed on
 the web as the anonymous work that Linda posted.
 I'm pretty sure I've received the same version over
 the web for the last three years now.
 
Rush tells us that the web version is not a very
 accurate account of his father's work, and so he
 put his father's version on his web site, but that
 was after I had already found it on
 http://rosecity.net/rush/freedom.html. If you read
 it, I believe you'll not only see a big difference, but
 will learn some additional details (e.g., the story of
 Abraham Clark). Rush's father, Rush H.
 Limbaugh, Jr., was an attorney and community
 leader in Cape Girardeau, Missouri, who had an
 obvious interest in history and in our nation's
 heritage.
 
So is the Rush version the complete truth? Probably
 not. Few of us have the time or need to completely
 research these things. I just checked the snopes site
 and was vectored to the site of the debunker:
http://home.nycap.rr.com/elbrecht/signers/signerind
ex.html. Here, Elbricht's latest effort does a fair job
 of identifying the many versions, along with dates
 and authors. As I read, I got the distinct
 impression that the creator of the term "History
 Glurge" was forced into further research in defense
 of his original highly-emotional diatribe. As often
 happens, better research resulted in a more
 moderate approach (fewer emotionally-loaded
 words) with the conclusion (mine) that "truth"
 (history without interpretation) is somewhat
 boring. Elbrecht admits that most of the
 interpretations are highly readable. Of the
 Limbaugh version, he says "[if true] it would rank
 on my top ten favorite stories of the times." I don't
 believe his disqualification "if true" is meant to
 imply that Limbaugh's version is NOT true, only
 that, without actually being there with video
 cameras (need several), we can't verify every
 aspect of Rush's interpretation.
 
So what's it all mean? Well, I read once that you
 can tell a lot about a nation's culture by the stories
 and folklore we pass onto our children. When I
 was growing up, we had lots of "Horatio Alger"
 type stories of people who struggled against the
 odds, but who maintained their integrity and
 character to eventually succeed. Of course, many
 of the stories, like "the signers" were patriotic.
 Many historians credit these stories as a major
 influence on the early success of our nation. On the
 other hand, there are other cultures whose folklore
 is depressing, contributing to widespread despair
 and acquiescence. The Irish are a good example.
 Read "Angela's Ashes" or see the movie. While
 Frank McCourt was able to succeed, most of his
 countrymen do not. They're victims of the British
 and, with few exceptions (mostly authors), they
 don't seem to know how to fix the problem.

I'm not particularly enamored with the stories of
 victims. Blame it on my childhood. And because of
 that I rather liked Linda Reining Pitchford (64)'s
 contribution to The SANDBOX. It made me feel
 good to be an American.
                       - Dick Epler (52)

                               ~ ~ ~

Subj: B17 Bomber, "Pay Day"
(Follow-up re: Richland Bombers' New Mascot)
From: David Henderson (60)
david.henderson@lamrc.com

There was another side of the B-17 bomber "Pay
 Day" that I did not mention in my first e-mail,
 because it seemed so implausible to me. Since I
 received your e-mails I have given this a second
 look.

When you look at the B-17 bomber "Pay Day,"
 painted on the wall of the RHS gym, you are
 struck by how much more colorful it looks, when
 compared to its companions in the same painting.  
 I was struck by it's bright yellow tail, and yellow
 wing tips.  I asked myself, what sane pilot would
 fly so colorful an airplane deep into enemy
 territory (Germany).  So I got my hands on a
 number of color photos of WWII B-17 bombers.  I
 found that all the bombers in the photos were
 painted a dull green.  Now some of the planes had
 large letters on their tail (colored red, or black, or
 white), but NONE of the bombers had a bright
 yellow tail and yellow wing tips like the painting of
 "Pay Day."

As I wrote in a previous e-mail, the rotation of the
 propellers, on "Pay Day" are in the opposite
 direction of a normal B-17.  So I ask myself why
 did the artist paint "Pay Day" so colorfully and
 with the wrong propeller rotation?  One possibility
 is that the artist(s) failed to do their homework on
 B-17 bombers.  The second possibility is that the
 artist knew exactly what he or she were doing, and
 they painted "Pay Day" in such a way as to create
 discussion.
                - David E Henderson (60)

                                ~ ~ ~

[Speaking of WWII items, Michael West Rivers,
(68WB),  mwestr@lasvegas.net,
 points to August 9, 2000, as marking the
 55th anniversary of the dropping of  "our bomb."]

                                 ~ ~ ~

Subj:    OK...I couldn't resist...I'm back!
From:   From Mike Franco (1970)
Bmbr70@aol.com

OK...I couldn't resist...I'm back! I  have read the
 Sandbox regularly these past months but without
 contributing was beginning to feel a little oily...so,
 a few responses to issue #73 or "what I learned":

Interesting point made about the relative 
 "smartness" of Bush and Gore. Applying the
 criteria of formal education (ie: Gore had a
 bachelors degree form somewhere, Bush a BA
 from Yale AND a masters in biz from Harvard) I 
 suddenly, shockingly realized how much more
 brilliant  Bill Clinton is than Ronald Reagan (not
 really...well, maybe....nah!) 

I also learned that "government doesn't work"...but,
 but  almost EVERY country seems to have one !!! 
 Why is that? I am confused (again.... still) ... I too
 am mildly interested in the Libertarian bunch, but
 what do we call them ??? Not "libs", or "arions"
 ...those don't work. Don't treat this problem 
 lightly.  In a year like this one with so little
 substance or real (at least new) issues, things like
 abbreviations, acronyms, nicknames, slogans and  
 brainless marketeering can really sway things. My
 14 year old daughter right now supports Gore
 (slightly) because she finds Bush "more annoying"
 but this can change quickly. She also finds me less
 annoying than Bush, but I'll never get her vote.  I
 try to look at the actual performance of the
 candidates.  So far I can't find anything that Gore
 has actually done, while Bush traded Sammy Sosa. 
 My research continues..... 

Good health, happiness and hello to ALL fellow Bombers!
                   - Mike Franco (1970)

                                 ~ ~ ~

[Note: Issue 73 of The SANDBOX published 
 the following quote:

               "Perfection is the child of time."
                    - Bishop Joseph Hall
                           1574 - 1656

According to some, perfection can also become a
 stumbling block.  Peggy Lewis Johnson '62,
 gpjohn@sos.net, offers the following:]

             "Perfection is the enemy of good"
          
"Don't know the author, but my friend," she says,
 "an Orthopedic surgeon, and my husband, a
 veterinarian, use the expression now and then."

                                 ~ ~ ~

Subj:  Reads Every Issue
>From Chris Bolkan
ChrisB@cadwell.com

Al,

Just to let you know I look forward to each and
 every issue. Never really make much in the way of
 entries, but don't think for one minute I'm not
 reading. And for heaven's sake don't cancel my
 subscription!
                          - Chris Bolkan (72)

                                ~ ~ ~

That concludes this issue, folks. Lots more to
 come.  Perhaps in Issue 77, we'll even answer that
 frequently asked question, "Where is Shippenville?"
 Please remember to include your class year and
 former name, (if applicable), in all correspondence
 and subscription requests.
                        - Al Parker (53) -
                Your SANDBOX moderator
         
                               - 76 -
***************************************
***************************************

********************************************
THE SANDBOX ~ Issue #77 ~ August 27, 2000

            "If you don't care, who will?"
                              -anon

Look Who's Talking Today!

           Lee Johnson (55) and Steve Carson (58)
 reply to some of Bob Carlson's comments about
 President Clinton.

          Anna Durbin '69, says, "It's not really
 government by the people anymore because it
 costs so much to get elected."

         Brad Wear (71), comments: "Several issues
 back someone stated "If Bush is in office the US
 will be as poor as Texas," or words to that effect. 
 I'll gladly take that chance.  I live in Texas and see
 on a daily basis the prosperity that is here for the 
educated and uneducated alike."

         Patty Stordahl (1972), wonders, "Why are we
 as parents so afraid to stand up for our children
 regardless of age and lead them away from violent
 & sexually explicit   (entertainment ), bad music,
 bad behavior, bad influences, poor decisions and
 teach solid rewards  and consequences for their
 personal behavior?
                                  ~ ~ ~
Here's More of What We're Talking About Today:

Subj: "Everybody Does it" Is No Excuse.
From:   Lee Johnson `55
           Beeg Byte@aol.com

In reference to the Bob Carlson (AKA "Mike
 Clowes") (Issue 74), trying to mitigate President
 Clinton's behavior....I say shame on you Bob. 
 Your mother did not buy the "everybody does it"
 excuse when you were a kid.  What makes you
 think anyone is going to buy it now?

                               ~ ~ ~

Subj:   Broken Record Defense Wearing Thin 
From:  Steve Carson (58)
SteveNitro@aol.com
 
For Bob Carlson (aka Clinton apologist)  
Your broken record defense of the President 
is wearing thin.  Steve Carson 58

                             ~ ~ ~

Subj:   What ever happened to "Government 
            By The People?"
From:   Anna Durbin '69
golddurb@libertynet.org

Well, the writers of today [Issue #74], Bob Carlson
 (aka "Mike Clowes") `54, Dave Henderson, and
 Mary (Ray) Henslee made a lot of intelligent
 observations.  They are so intelligent because I
 agree with them, right?  The thing that bugs me so
 much about the partisan politics is that the parties
 have moved so close together because the people
 in Congress are all wealthy and have the same
 interests in the status quo.  It's not really
 government by the people anymore because it
 costs so much to get elected.  And they and the
 media will not allow reforms or for we the
 people to take back the airwaves because it works
 so well for them.  The media, owned by the
 conservatives, gets richer, and congressmen get
 favored as incumbents, and then they get to take
 left over campaign funds with them or give them to
 others for favors, and they have a pension far
 superior to what any of us will have.  We have lost
 our country because we are bored with voting
 because there is no difference, or because we don't
 work at the grassroots to get candidates who stand
 for any principles besides getting reelected.

I do think we did get a good education in Richland. 
 I was afraid when I went to college that others
 would be head and shoulders above me in   
 preparation.  But I had been taught to write
 complete sentences, and I had been taught to
 analyze what I read, and I did well.

I think my child who is going off to college has
 been taught to think and analyze and question in
 her public school, and I am proud of the way she
 thinks things through.  I worry about the fine
 points of her writing, but she wants to be a writer
 and I believe her college will whip her into shape
 and she will learn because she wants to be able to
 communicate those great ideas she has.  And she
 had enough great teachers who made her want to
 learn.  She had her share of the duds who should
 have retired long ago, but she didn't let them get
 her down.  

I think we are going the wrong way with testing
 and forced curricula for improving the education of
 our children.  The money should be going into
 superb training for our teachers to communicate
 the love and excitement of learning.  Think back to
 when we were in school.  Did you learn more
 because of a test?  The greatest learning that I
 remember that I have used since came through
 those teachers who had that enthusiastic sparkle to
 share the excitement of leaning.  We have
 mentioned many of them in The Sandstorm, like
 Julia Davis, Gerry Labrecque, Sonja Harmon,
 Barbara? Jensen, Vera Edwards, Daddy Dawald,
 L.Holland St. John and many others from my era
 that my brain is leaving out.  I believe if we want
 our kids taught well we have to pick the best
 teachers and nurture them and pay them well
 which shows them the respect of the community. 
 Killing their enthusiasm by forcing them to teach to
 the tests will get us nothing but bored kids.  

We should learn a lesson from Harry Potter.  Kids
 do like to read and they do have an attention span. 
 And J.K. Rowling knows how to tell a story from
 the point of view of kids.  She deals with a lot of
 moral choices in those books, about helping your
 friends, and who a real friend is, even if they aren't
 rich or popular.  So did a lot of the classic writers
 that my kids have loved over the years.  My oldest
 fell in love with Shakespeare in junior high when I
 read her to sleep with it.  The poetry comes alive
 when it is read aloud.  We went to all kinds of
 different productions.  All of my children adored
 the Leonardo DiCaprio/Clare Danes Romeo and
 Juliet because it spoke to their times and their
 issues.  Shakespeare has held up over the centuries
 because he knew humans.  We are complex.  We
 aren't as simple as passing the next test.  

Well, enough spouting on my theories of education. 
 I am supposed to be working.  Yeah, I'm not a
 teacher.  I'm a lawyer.  I can't imagine how this
 happened because I hated writing and I hated
 getting up in front of people to talk.  But my
 teachers encouraged me to do those things until I
 became good at them, and they weren't so hard. 
 And now I use them to try to solve people's
 problems and to stick up for the underdog.  And to
 work on school board and congressional 
 campaigns. And to talk to high school kids about
 sexual harassment.  So I guess the time of those
 teachers was not wasted with me or with any of
 you who are still passionate about issues and keep
 up on them. 

     Thanks for the forum.  - Anna Durbin '69   

                                 ~ ~ ~      


Subj:    As Poor As Texas?
From:  Brad Wear (71)
From:  Wear90@aol.com

Several issues back someone stated "if Bush is in
 office the US will be as poor as Texas" or words
 to that effect.  I'll gladly take that chance.  I live in
 Texas and see on a daily basis the prosperity that is
 here for the educated and uneducated alike.

The healthcare issue is definitely a problem,
 primarily due to the high influx of
 undocumented/illegal aliens.  Most of the indigent
 are non-English speaking people of Hispanic and or
 oriental extraction.  This is probably very much
 like the make-up of California and their immigrant
 issue.  The majority of the men are in the
 restaurant and construction industry here.  Both of
 which I focus on in my business.  It's interesting to
 hear from the managers and supervisors about how
 some, not all, but some of the younger workers
 with families refuse the medical insurance due to
 the deduction from their payroll.  They would
 rather "roll the dice" with their families well being
 than have money deducted from their checks to
 safeguard their health.  The older established aliens
 usually take the insurance for their families.  It's
 also interesting to learn that a correlation exists
 with most of my clients that these same individuals
 that refuse the deduction are frequently arrested
 for public drunkenness, spousal abuse, and
 disorderly conduct.  These are not minimum wage
 employees, most are in the $15-17/ hr range.  Not 
 a bad income by most standards.  Now I can't
 speak to their reasons why they would reject the
 insurance.  Several of the managers I deal with say
 it is a machismo thing with them, others think they
 just don't understand how the insurance system
 works in the US.

I thought it was an isolated issue in the
 Plano/Dallas area, but working with companies in
 El Paso, Lubbock, San Antonio, Austin and
 Houston I find it's a common practice.  One my
 consultants have to deal with so frequently we've 
 added it to our software implementation templates. 
 Are the people of Texas subjected to inadequate
 health care due to George Bush?  Probably not.  If
 it were such a problem why wouldn't the 
 Democratic controlled house and senate push it
 through on their agenda?  Walk a mile in their 
 shoes before you make a blanket statement.

                      - Brad Wear 71.

                                  ~ ~ ~ 

Subj: When Did Being a Parent Change, and Why?
From:   Patty Stordahl 1972
DZIGNRITE@aol.com
 
I am wondering why so many parents have taken a
 back seat to being the parent. Why are parents
 wanting to be their childrens' friend or pal? 
 Sharing the first drink or providing a safe place to
 fornicate or offering the pill or the alternative if the
 little darlings get pregnant, MURDERING  an
 innocent life. Many even go so far as to share a
 moment of drug indulgence with them?  When did
 being a parent change and why? Is it really so hard
 to truly say no, be the example, dare to be the
 authority?  Out of all the kids my daughter knows, 
 I have been told I am the only one that dares to
 question their activities, not allow single dating at
 the tender age of 16 and also requiring a meeting
 with all her friends that she associates with on a
 regular basis. It amazes me that many of the kid's
 she knows of in her high school that have any
 social life at all most are no longer virgins many of
 the girls have had abortions and the boys who
 fathered the baby that was destroyed take no
 responsibility, and speak like they just stepped out
 of a gutter somewhere, or the girls parents have
 put them on birth control or  give their boys
 condoms just in case so they would not get
 pregnant. Is it so wrong to not provide all the outs
 for bad behavior?  Is it horrible to train your
 children to respect their own person and to say no
 to lust, to teach them about the consequences of
 bad decisions. Inform them of STD's, To let them
 pray or know that there is a higher power out
 there.  Why is it always someone else's influences
 at fault when our little ones get their butts in a
 sling?

When my kids do something stupid, I make my kids
 shoulder the whole responsibility for their actions. 
 No way am I going to listen to, well so and so
 made me do it.  When and why did the shift of
 parenting land on the shoulders of the state?  Why
 are we as parents so afraid to stand up for our
 children regardless of age and lead them away
 from violent & sexually explicit ( entertainment )
 bad music, bad behavior, bad influences, poor
 decisions and teach solid rewards and consequences
 for their personal behavior? I am still amazed and
 bewildered

Just a wondering question.

                      Patty Stordahl 1972

                                ~ ~ ~

That concludes this issue, folks. Lots more to
 come.  Perhaps in Issue 78, we'll even answer that
 frequently asked question, "Where is  
 Shippenville?" (Clue: Not even close to 99352.)

 Please remember to include your class year and
 former name, (if applicable), in all correspondence
 and subscription requests.  You can send mail here,
 either by hitting the reply button on your screen, or
 by addressing it to: The_Sandbox@bigfoot.com

By the way, how would you like to see a
 historically set TV series, either a sitcom or
 dramatic series, to be titled, 99352?  Any ideas on
 what it ought to include?  Characters?  Conflicts?
 Issues?  

See you next time!
                        - Al Parker (53) -
                Your SANDBOX moderator

                               - 77 -
***************************************
***************************************

********************************************
THE SANDBOX ~ Issue #78 ~ August 30, 2000

          "To read without reflecting, is like
          eating without digesting." --Burke

Today's Contributors Are:

Marc Franco (66), Dick Wight '52, Bob Carlson 
(aka "Mike Clowes") '54, Andrew Eckert (54), 
Dick Epler (52), and Linda Reining Pitchford (64)

                                ~ ~ ~

Subj:   Reply to Steve Carson- Sandbox #71- 
    A Fair Foreign Policy
From:   Marc Franco (66)
Reply-to: mfranco@sttl.uswest.net

A couple Sandboxes ago, I offered a short list of
 what I looked for in a candidate, including, among
 other things, "a fair foreign policy." Unfortunately,
 Steve caught me on this and asked what I mean by
 that.  Also unfortunately, I don't know. There are
 issues out there such as abortion and gun control,
 where the issues and topics are extremely well-
 known, where the information is well-known, and
 where more talking about it really won't change
 anything. We already have all the facts that we
 need, and there really aren't any new ones around
 to make us change our minds. "A fair foreign
 policy" doesn't really fall into that category, and
 more into that of "beauty is in the eyes of the
 beholder." We each have our own ideas on what is
 fair, what is beautiful, etc.

    I can really only offer two items on this. One is,
 that my own preference is that we be aware that
 other countries have their own needs as well as do
 we. Every country in the world has to watch out
 for itself-that is a given. But no country needs to
 run roughshod over others in order to achieve their
 own needs. I guess I am saying that we should
 avoid jingoism. Possibly an example of this is the
 debate several years ago about whether we should
 give back the Panama Canal to Panama or not. (I'm
 not trying to reopen the debate.) I was in favor of
 this, because clearly it would be a matter of huge
 national pride to Panama to have control of
 something on their own land, it would greatly
 enhance our relations with South America-which
 it did-and as long as our own interests were not
 impaired by having Panama run the canal, then
 why not do it? The conservatives, on the other
 hand, went berserk about this, screaming about the
 danger to our country, etc. People here may or
 may not agree with the return of the Panama
 Canal, but to me, that would in fact be an example
 of a fair foreign policy. We achieved great good
 will in South America, and did not impair our own
 interests.

    Second, if Jesse Helms, chairman of the Senate
 Foreign Relations Committee, likes something,
4 then I am against it. 

                       Marc Franco (66)

                                ~ ~ ~

Subj:  President (and I think) Republican Bashing - 
    Bob Carson's comments
From: Dick Wight '52
dwight@nwinfo.net

I read The Sandbox with interest but haven't
 commented before except once early on in a
 discussion of salmon protection.  But Bob's
 comments elicit a response from me.  First, I have
 voted in every federal office election since I was
 old enough, which meets Bob's criteria for
 speaking out.  Second, I served 32 years in the
 military.  Third, I even ran for public office at a
 local level (city council), unfortunately won and
 served a term.  I was younger and more impetuous,
 and surrendered to the strong urge to
 "throw the ***** out," as Bob puts it!

Regarding our incumbent president - I care a great
 deal about his conduct in office, and wanted him
 tried and convicted by the senate, if the charge of
 lying under oath was proven.  As a fellow with
 Republican leanings, I suppose I could be accused
 of partisan bias.  However, I must say that while I 
 voted for Nixon, I wanted him removed from office
 when I finally understood the gravity of his
 misconduct in office.  At least he resigned.  I wish
 the incumbent had done likewise, since the senate
 lacked the resolve to send him packing!

It isn't that I'm such a moral, high-minded guy.  It's
 just that I believe our very public politicians, in
 particular our chief executive, need to try extra
 hard to live exemplary lives while serving in high
 office.  If they can't, they don't belong there.

With regard to Reagan/Bush spending us in to debt: 
 Has Bob forgotten who approves budgets and 
 appropriates public funds?

                      - Dick Wight '52

                               ~ ~ ~

Subj:   Reading, writing and politics
From:   Bob Carlson (aka "Mike Clowes") '54
bobs@proaxis.com (Robert Carlson)

I was gearing up to write a learned treatise, chock
 full of historical insight and heavy handed humor
 in response to Dick Epler's ('52) comments on
 libertarians in the body politic in issue 73.  Then I 
 read Mary Ray Henslee's ('61) comments on
 reading in issue 74.

Let me first address my learned colleague, Mr.
 Epler.  Dick, the reason that libertarians are not
 represented in national office is not their respectability,
 but their intelligence.  They are too smart for the voters.
 I don't mean to say that they are smarter than the 
 average voter, they just appear to be.  Does this 
 explain Jesse Ventura?  Who knows.

Now on to other things.  Mary, you are right in
 saying that "Johnny can read, when he wants to." 
 There are two basic problems when it comes to
 seeing that Johnny wants to read, and maybe even
 write.

The first are the two major detractions of this age: 
 Television and computers.  Later it will include
 girls and cars (but not necessarily in that order).

The other is parents.
Are you aware that there are "responsible" parents
 out there who are afraid of books, and what their
 children might learn from them?  Is this because
 these parents are afraid that their children will
 know more than the parents do?  Or is it the
 parents are afraid that the children will learn to
 think?

Remember the hue and cry in the weeks preceding
 July 8th, inst.?  That was the day the latest Harry
 Potter was to be sold.  Oh, this was a vile and evil
 book!  I don't know, I've never read them (yet),
 but I have purchased copies to give to my
 grandchildren.  For this reason, I don't think the
 books are evil, no more so than Beatrix Potter or
 Hugh Lofting or Edgar Rice Burroughs for that
 matter.

I personally didn't care too much for Ms. Potter's
 stories, but Lofting's adventures of Doctor
 Doolittle were a fun read.  As for Mr. Burroughs, I
 liked his Martian stores much better than those of 
 Tarzan.  And for a young person about to enter the
 teen years, I would heartily recommend Booth
 Tarkington's tales of Penrod.

But then, as family lore would have it, I was able to
 read words in the funny papers at an early age.  I
 don't remember this, but I have been told that it
 happened.

What I think happens is that most parents just
 follow the herd.  When one person in the herd
 panics, the whole thing becomes a stampede.  And
 the funny thing is, these people all try to claim their
 own individuality.  But they still react to the herd. 
 And they want everyone else to feel the same way.

It is obvious, from reading both the Alumni
 Sandstorm and The Sandbox that Bomber parents
 and teachers must have done something different. 
 I recently tried to look up some information about
 a school system that I went to before Richland. 
 There was nothing there.  The school district had a
 web page and one could get to the class of '85.  If 
 you wanted to find out about any other class you
 had to register in a nationwide thing.  Even then I
 doubt the ability to get the information I was
 seeking.  But I can find out about my fellow
 Bombers, their parents and the Bomber wannabes.

But, I digress.  The only sure way to get "Johnny"
 to read is to instill in the mind that reading (and
 writing) is the best relief from boredom.  It is
 surprising what one can learn from reading a book
 without even knowing it.  To paraphrase Will
 Rogers "All I know is what I read."

         Bob Carlson (aka "Mike Clowes") '54

                               ~ ~ ~


Note: Apologies to Mr. Eckert for publishing his
 entry so late "in the season" as it were, due to a
 large backlog of Sandbox entries.  Please consider
 his comments from the perspective of what might
 have happened had Gore chosen such a potential
 running mate as suggested by Eckert in this article.

Subj:    Gore / McCain 2000
From:   Andrew Eckert (54)
ECKERT1108@aol.com

Could this be pay back time? Is it possible that John
 McCain may well be the wild card pick as Gores
 running mate. As almost everyone would be aware
 Bush & McCain slugged it out in a few primaries,
 Bush and the large sums of money made him the
 victor with delegate votes but not with the people. 
 Mostly McCain received more popular votes 
 than Bush & Gore put together. In running this
 Campaign McCain made an enemy of those who
 wanted no part of Campaign reform and one of
 them was Trent Lott, then there is the So called 
 religious right.  So than Gore & McCain have a
 very private meeting on the vice presidents 
 compound.  Salon writes that a statement by Gore
 after this meeting reveals that his number one
 priority after becoming president would be to pass
 the McCain / Finegold bill.  The same day an
 article also attributes this statement to Gore "That
 he may not pick someone like himself as vice
 president and in fact could look to someone in the
 Republican party" Almost immediately McCain
 now indorses Bush and hits the trail campaigning 
 for all the moderate Republicans who now have a
 leader and who appeared to be very uncomfortable
 with there party now being controlled by the very
 right wing.  Add now the name Cheney.  McCain
 continues and is almost believable that he is the
 Republican with Reagan and Goldwater standards
 that no one should question. Move your thoughts
 to Clinton who must want to make sure that Gore
 and his administration continue.  Surely he wants
 to do whatever it takes to bring down this right
 wing of the Republican party that has been
 feverishly trying to destroy him and his 
 administration sense its inception.  Plainly if
 McCain accepted the vice presidency under Gore
 than the right wing would be thrown out as well as
 the extreme left in the Democratic party would exit
 Both would be a welcome outcome to a new non
 partisan government. McCain than becomes the
 leader of his party minus any of the right, one
 added benefit to McCain would be his new job
 would give him the top spot over Trent Lott in the
 senate you just have to believe he would love that.  
 Bill Clinton finally has the satisfaction of ending
 there eight years of attacks and defamation.
 History has it that in the old days the top vote
 recipient was President, the next highest vote
 recipient, his opponent in the other party most
 generally, took the Vice Presidency.  I for one
 would welcome a coalition government, just might
 be able to do some of the country's business for a
 change. McCain said in a strangely equivocal final
 sentence of his convention speech that "I have such
 faith in you, my fellow Americans.  And I am
 haunted by the vision of what will be."  Four years
 from now the tickets could well be, Gore / Hillary
 vs. McCain / Whitman.

                   - Andrew Eckert (54)

                                ~ ~ ~

Subj:    Re: Bob Carlson's Comments in Issue 74
From:    Dick Epler (52)
depler@ortelco.net

While I get the impression that Bob Carlson (54)
 likes Bill Clinton I'm not sure exactly why. In
 adopting all the standard Clintonion defenses of
 trashing past American Presidents to excuse bad
 behavior, Bob seems to lack a substantive
 reason to support the man in a positive way. But
 maybe that's really the answer. Maybe people
 don't generally support Clinton as much as they
 can't stand the prospect of any person or party
 leading the nation who might be principled
 (present company excepted, of course – ALL
 Bombers are principled)!
 
On the other hand, I can't help thinking how nice it
 would be to elect someone with character and
 principles who seeks to unite us all, rather than
 attempting to divide us along the lines of class,
 race and sex for political gain. Watching the
 Republican National Convention on TV gives me
 hope … so long as I don't listen to what Bob calls
 the "talking heads" (I tend to invest in .com's).
 
And so I echo Bob's feelings when he writes: "The
 simple solution [to our discontent] is "to vote the
 ******'s out of office" and put new ones in." 

                      - Dick Epler (52)

                              ~ ~ ~

Subj:   THE.SANDBOX.website
From:   Linda Reining Pitchford (64)
Wabbithabit@aol.com
 
To Dick Epler( 52) re: Sandbox entry #76: just one
 word----THANKS-----a very small word, but it
 speaks "volumes."

                               ~ ~ ~

That concludes this issue, folks. Keep expressing
 yourself here!  Please remember to include your
 class year and maiden name, (if applicable), in all
 correspondence and subscription requests.  There's
 much more in the hopper already, coming to you
 soon!
                         -Al Parker (53)
                 Your Sandbox Moderator

                   - 78 -
`,,``,,`
         END of JUN thru AUG, 2000
`,,``,,`

      JAN thru MAY, 2000 ~ SEP, 2000