Click THE SANDBOX number to go to that issue.
Use your browser's back button to return here.
 THE SANDBOX Archive ~ 2000 (Part 5 of 5)
NOV, 2000 ~ #102, #103, #104, #105, #106, #107,
            #108, #109, #110, #111, #112, #113,
            #114, #115, #116
DEC, 2000 ~ #117, #118

THE SANDBOX ~ Issue #102 ~ November 1, 2000

        "Every noble work is at first impossible."
                              - Carlyle

       Growing Up In The Fifties
       Bob (Mike Clowes) Carlson '54

       Looking At Issue 100 and Dare
       Anna Durbin '69

       Our Sex Lives
       Jenny (Smart) Page `87

       Myth: Homosexuals Are born That Way
       Jimmie A. Shipman Class of "51" 

       Will Al Gore Ruin our energy supplies?
       Marc Franco  (66)


Subj:    Growing Up In The Fifties
From:   Bob (Mike Clowes) Carlson '54

    Tedd Cadd (66), writing in Sandbox Issue #99,
wondered if it is OK to write about the bad things
encountered while growing up in the fifties.  This is
as opposed to all the "feel good" memories one finds in
the Alumni Sandstorm.  I don't know, Tedd.  Yes, I'm
sure there were things going on in your life that are
not pleasant memories.  You graduated in 1966, which
meant you were born in 1948 or '49, and by the time you
got to school "THE BOMB" was the big bogey man of the
day, not to mention "The Red Menace."  And would we go
to war with the Russians?

    To be confronted which such horrendous thoughts at
an impressionable age no doubt had some effect.  To say
nothing of what television did to one's mind.

    When I started to school, Pearl Harbor had been
bombed, and things looked very bleak throughout the
world.  Would we have to learn Japanese or German?
(Depended on which coast you lived near.)  We couldn't
get all the toys we wanted because the materials to
make them were going to the "War Effort."  And the
Great Depression still lingered in the minds of many.
This was during my grade school years.

    By the time I got to high school, we wondered how
long the mess in Korea was going to last, and would we
have to go there.  My class didn't, but preceding ones
did.  Your class got in on the beginning of Vietnam,
and all that that entailed. My class missed out on the
"Sexual Revolution"; yours was in the midst of it.

    This certainly affected our separate life choices,
both immediately and future.  To be honest with you, I
don't know how many of my class served in or during the
Vietnam War.  We would have been senior noncommissioned
officers or middle grade officers.  Your class would
have been "grunts" and "shavetails' or "Hershey bar
lieutenants."  An entirely different perspective.  At
least neither of us were among the mindless s.o.b.'s
who "fought" that war from the Pentagon basement or the
"West Wing."

    Did I feel safe growing up in Richland?  Yes. Did I
feel deprived?  Not necessarily.  Did I have any idea
what the rest of the world was like?  No way.  The
first African-American to graduate started high school
in 1956, two years after I graduated.  And is Richland
still "lily-white"? Yeah, pretty much so.

    Are these pages a forum for discussing such things?
Certainly.  But, Tedd, I would draw the line at
personal things about your life or even mine. There are
still things best left unsaid.

    That's my opinion and I'm entitled to it.

           - Bob (Mike Clowes) Carlson '54


Subj:    Looking At Issue 100 and Dare
From:   Anna Durbin '69

Dear Editor Al:  

I think you made a good choice about allowing the long
quotations.  I am glad to see where in the Bible people
come up with this, and I thought the Vermont piece said
a lot that needed to be said. And me too, Mike Franco.
I am trying to get hold of any studies about the
efficacy of the DARE programs in schools.  My kids have
found it a colossal waste of time, and some of the
teaching methods of the police with their guns on them
leave a lot to be desired.

Anybody want to talk about DARE? Keep up the good work.

                     - Anna Durbin '69


Subj:   Our Sex Lives
From:   Jenny Smart Page `87
West Richland, WA

I think the problem that many people have with the
topic of a homosexual lifestyle comes from the minority
portion of that population who find it necessary to
flaunt their sexuality and "throw" it in the public
face.  The homosexuals that I have known were all
living a very "normal" life; meaning they didn't dance
around in the street during parades wearing flamboyant
outfits, carrying "bedroom toys" and acting out sex
acts.  Its this small percentage of the alternative
lifestyle crowd that is giving them all a bad name.  I
think the vast majority of the remainder of the
population would be more tolerant of a person's chosen
lifestyle if it wasn't associated with these few
outlandish people.

Perhaps if everyone just kept their personal behavior
personal, then it wouldn't be a problem.  I won't tell
you what I do in my don't tell me what
you do.  And if you're a kind, honest, trustworthy,
friendly person, I'll accept and like and respect you
just like anyone else.

  Jenny Smart Page (87) ~ West Richland, WA


Subj:  Myth: Homosexuals Are born That Way
From:   Jimmie A. Shipman Class of  "51" 
Richland, WA

Where to start?

Lets try this:

As a Christian I take a stand against the sin of
homosexuality as stated in the Bible period. Not the
person.  I don't believe in the bashing of the people
practicing homosexual acts, but I do believe
heterosexual people have the right to voice their
opinions about the homosexual acts they indulge in. God
will deal with the homosexual in his way. I have very
deep feelings for the parents of homosexuals that have
spoken out here and elsewhere, regarding their
children's sexual preference.  It will be worth your
time to ponder these words.


A popular MYTH believed by many in society and the
church today is that HOMOSEXUALS ARE BORN THAT WAY. Gay
advocates have done a remarkably effective job of
promoting this myth in an age where any assertion
backed by an appeal to science is received uncritically
as truth.

The truth is that there is NO scientific evidence that
there is a "gay gene" or that anyone is born gay. The
National Association for Research and Therapy of
Homosexuality in a recent fact sheet states, "there is
no evidence that shows that homosexuality is genetic.
And none of the research claims there is. Only the
press and certain researchers do when speaking in sound
bites to the public."

At the same time, a number of interesting studies in
the past decade have attempted to demonstrate that,
while there is no evidence of a gay gene, there might
be some type of genetic influence toward homosexuality
in some people. This would not mean they are born
homosexual, but that it would be easier for them to
become homosexual in orientation IF certain
environmental factors are present. However, none of
these studies with the more modest claims has survived
the scrutiny of other researchers or been replicated by
another group of scientists, as is necessary if a study
is to be credible.

It is important that research continue. Since we live
in a fallen world, genetic brokenness is part of our
lot, as has been demonstrated in certain physical
disorders. If there were a direct genetic component in
the homosexual inclination, it would be interesting to
know it. However, even if there were a genetic element
in some people that tilted them toward homosexuality,
1) it would not result in a homosexual orientation
without certain environmental factors being present, 2)
it would not change God's mind about the sinfulness of
acting on that disorientation, and 3) it would not
change the fact that CHANGE IS POSSIBLE!

In Conclusion We feel a river analogy best illustrates
what really happens. We believe God designed human
sexuality to flow between two well-defined banks called
heterosexuality. However, by dropping many rocks into
the river, a dam can form which will divert the flow in
another direction.  Homosexuality is one direction the
water may flow. The rocks can be named family
dysfunction, sexual abuse, rejection, sibling rivalry,
peer pressure, personal traits, poor modeling of
masculinity and femininity, etc. It would not be
correct to try to extract only one rock and make it
solely responsible. In fact, in our opinion, that would
be another grave oversimplification. 

God Bless
Now go have a good day.

Jimmie A. Shipman


Subj:   Will Al Gore Ruin our energy supplies?
From:   Marc Franco   (66)

Mary Ray Henslee had quite a diatribe about the
 possibility of Al Gore possibly causing our cars to
 no longer drive, because we have used up our
 rations, our economy will crash and we will have
 no jobs (seemingly Mary Ray is ignoring that the
 Democrats have just presided over 8 years of
 brilliant economy- no matter, apparently, Gore will
 apparently ruin what Clinton could not- or maybe I
 am misunderstanding), our trucks will be unable to
 roll to get food to grocery stores, our fighter
 planes will have no fuel, and we will no longer be a
 world power because we have  not developed our
 energy sources.

    WOW! This is frightening stuff. Actually, I think
 somebody is a little hysterical. For one thing, I am
 unaware of what the administrations of Reagan
 and Bush did to advance our development of new
 energy sources.  Perhaps Mary Ray Henslee could
 enlighten us.

    Second, it is indeed ironic that she is criticizing
 Gore so heavily, and meanwhile her own
 candidate- Bush- and indeed his father as well did
 the same- is still refusing to believe that human
 economic activity is magnifying the greenhouse
 effect. Nine years of the past decade were
 successively the warmest on record, the Arctic ice
 pack is 40 % thinner than it was in the 1950's, the
 ozone layer is showing holes all over the place,
 estimates are that worldwide temperatures will rise
 6- 10 degrees over the next century- a
 PHENOMENAL occurrence. I wonder what that
 will do the coastlines around the world as the ice
 pack melts further. We are already seeing vicious
 storms and floods occurring with increasing
 regularity. The heating has already begun. What
 does Bush say about this- well, it needs more
 study- the same thing his father said ten years ago
 when there was a chance to sign an environmental
 treaty to limit some of the pollutants that lead to
 the greenhouse effect. Bush Sr. did not want to
 limit economic activity, and therefore said it needs
 more study. Bush the Younger is saying exactly
 the same thing.

  I suggest that Mary Ray Henslee try to limit her
 hysteria about Gore (fighter planes running out of
 fuel- indeed)! and start worrying about problems
 that are already here and which her candidate is
 seemingly unaware of.

   Also, she made a little dig at environmentalists
 and called them extremists. No doubt that some of
 them are- the ones who put spikes in trees to
 sabotage loggers, etc.- yes, those are extremists.
 The fact is that Republicans are not very good at
 environmental affairs. Even everybody's favorite
 Conservative on this board has admitted to me in a
 private conversation that the Republicans do not
 do well with environmental affairs.  For Mary Ray
 Henslee do dismiss environmentalists as extremists
 is once again an example of hysteria. Yes, there are
 some extremists is the group, but that is true in
 almost all groups. Most environmentalists are
 pretty normal people. Perhaps Mary Ray could
 make a list of environmental bills that Republicans
 have sponsored that she finds adequate.

                   - Marc Franco   (66)

That concludes this issue of THE SANDBOX folks. Please
include your class year and maiden name, (if applicable),
in all correspondence and subscription requests.  You may
also include your current locale if you wish.  It's easy
to join us in the ongoing conversations here.  Just send
your comments to:!  We are the 
Alumni of Richland High School, Richland Washington,
AKA Columbia High School, representing classes from 1942
through 2000. Visit the THE SANDBOX website.

Al Parker (53)
Shippenville, PA
                             - 102 -

THE SANDBOX ~ Issue #103 ~ November 3, 2000

  "Learning without thought is labor lost; thought
      without learning is perilous" --Confucius


       Speaking of Diatribes
       Andee (Creighton) Mansfield (67)

       Gore "misstatements"
       Tedd Cadd (66)

       Defending The Energy Issue
       Mary Ray Henslee (61)

       Homosexuality can be Corrected
       Vern Blanchette (64)


Subj:   Speaking of Diatribes
From:   Andee (Creighton) Mansfield (67)

RE: Mike Franco's Missive

Oh, brother! Speaking of diatribes! It seems that, once
again, liberals must use name-calling when faced with
an opposing view. Obviously we who are conservative are
naive, lacking in intelligence, misguided, and/or
hysterical. It makes me tired.

         Andee (Creighton) Mansfield (67)


Subj:   Gore "mis-statements"
From:   Tedd Cadd (66)

One very well documented source for various statements
Gore has termed "mis-statements" or "Got the details
wrong" is with the widely respected National Review page.

For example, the true quote behind the misquote that
Gore claimed to have discovered the Love Canal thing
was that he claimed to have held the first hearings on
it.  He did hold hearings on it, but only after the
president had declared it a disaster area.

                       - Tedd Cadd (66)

The tongue that brings healing is a tree of life.                          
  Proverbs 15:4


Subj:  Defending The Energy Issue
From:  Mary Ray Henslee (61)

To:  Marc Franco (66), Issue 102

I think that you read a lot into what I wrote that
wasn't really there.  Maybe I just didn't express
myself clearly.  Obviously party affiliation is
important to you.  I personally do not lean toward one
party or the other.  I vote for the person and current
issues.  I voted for Clinton in the last two elections.
Would I do it again knowing what I do today? Probably
not.  The covering up continues to this day.  If Gore
gets elected we will have to live through the
investigation of his secret pact with Russia allowing
them to sell arms to Iran because that will not be
completed until after the election due to cover-ups.
We will have to live through the investigation of his
campaign funding, which is going on right now.  We will
possibly have to live through the mole issue, which is
still under investigation.  It is time for a change in
my opinion.

I don't really know what Reagan or Bush Sr.'s policies
were and I don't feel like that is an issue since they
are in the distant past and not a part of this
election.  The difference between Gore and Bush is what
is at stake in this election.  Bush wants to develop an
energy plan of our own so that we are not dependent on
foreign sources.  If we had our own adequate supply of
oil and natural gas we would have control over supply
and demand.  We would also have control over the threat
to our environment, which we don't have when the
exploring and refining is done in foreign countries.
Like I pointed out in my last entry, the pollutants are
all going into the same atmosphere whether we are
operating in our own backyard or someone else's.  As
turbulent as things are in the Middle East it is not
far-fetched to think that we could be short-circuited
by adversaries, which would be detrimental to our
national security and economy.

The fact that Clinton just went into our strategic
reserve and then had to send the oil off to a foreign
country to be refined should be a wake up call.  Do you
wait until it rains to fix your roof?  Exploring for
oil and building refineries is not something that can
be done overnight.  If you will take note, Gore has not
stressed the environment in this campaign very much
except to criticize Texas cities.  I am sure that he
does not want to be questioned on his lack of an energy
policy.  It might be noted that