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 -
ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø
END of JUN thru AUG, 2000
ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø
JAN thru MAY, 2000 ~ SEP, 2000