The Richland Alumni SANDBOX 
          Issue # 7 ~ November 13, 1998 

From:   Byron Logman (56)

Been reading most of the Sandstorm and Sandbox
regularly. So far as I've checked the net, these are the
only high school alumni "memory lane" and forum that
I've come across.  Though I have lived officially in
Richland since 1950, most of my schooling was a boarding
school near Kenmore, WA.  Since I attended the last half
of my senior year at Col Hi--and graduated in 1956-- I
do consider myself also a full Bomber!

Ran across the attached the other day...another insight
to the Hanford era.

This is a great work in progress!!!  Byron Logman (56).

The article Byron refers to is an article by Dr. Richard
V. Pierard published in HISTORY TODAY entitled,
CHRISTIANS MAKE THE FIRST BOMB.  The article begins with
the author's 1944 memories as an almost-10-year old
making an arduous trek in an aging family car from
Chicago to the arid, bleak and windswept barren reaches
of the Richland-Hanford environs.

Pierard then goes on to describe in vivid detail the
early housing arrangements, and the senses of mystery
that surrounded this super secret government project,
the sudden population influx and other interesting
details as seen through a 10-year-old's eyes. He also
describes some of the downsides resulting from the
project, and perhaps we could say, the enigma of
Christians unwittingly building a bomb that could become
ultimately so vastly destructive to mankind.

Since many of the details of Richard Pierard's early
views of the Hanford and Richland scene were similar to
those related by many Col-Hi grads in the cyber pages of
the online Alumni Sandstorm I had to wonder if he might
also have become a Col-Hi graduate. I did remember a
Dick Pierard from my class of '53 years.  So via the
World Wide Web, I visited Indiana State University where
Dr. Richard Pierard is a Professor of History.  Indeed,
via an exchange of E-mails and a cordial phone
conversation between Maren Smyth and Pierard's wife,
Charlene, another Col-Hi graduate was found and added to
the Alumni Sandstorm and Sandbox list!

I enjoyed reading Dick Pierard's article very much and
wish that it could in some way be made available to all
of you in it's entirety.  There is a point of view to be
considered.  Some will agree with that point of view.
Some will not.  There is also a lot of interesting
detail and historical reference that I consider to be of
value and informative.  Some libraries may have the
magazine and/or article available.  Although I am not
aware of the exact publication date, it was copyrighted
in 1995. Published in CHRISTIAN HISTORY Magazine.  Many
libraries have access to a vast number of publications
via computer links with printout availability for
personal use.  Most city and college librarians will be
happy to help you with the search.
The following message is not from a Richland graduate,
but the subject is something that could concern all of
us so I am offering it as a possible item for discussion
or individual action.  -ap

Subj:    DON'T Let Them Tax The Internet!!!
From: (Thomas W. Brown)

Tell everyone you know about this....

There's a movement afoot to slap a tax on all of us
users of the Internet.  This would be done by adding
extra charges to your local telephone bill for using the

We don't have much must act now and get your
opinion to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
email addresses that follow.... Maybe if we all swamp
them with e-mail it may make a difference.  We have won
before so don't think your email can't make a Can!

Chairman -
Commissioner  -
Commissioner -
Commissioner -
Commissioner -

Send an email today telling them you don't want to be
taxed to use the Internet.

Thomas W. Brown
Subj:    Senior Driving
From:    Pam Ehinge Nassen (Class of 67)
Reply To: (Jerry D. Nassen)

Hi, this is my first time in the Sandbox, but I just had
to reply to Marguerite's comment about the elderly
driving.  I too hope when the time comes for me to quit
or give up my driving, I will know it or listen to
others who tell me it's time.

This is a very big problem, that our government does not
seem to acknowledge.  I'm no politician and I'm very
ignorant when it comes to the laws and whatnots.  But
someone out there should know how we could get a
petition started to have retesting a mandatory thing at
the age of 70-75.

Lets face it none of us are spring chickens any more and
our time is coming near too.

Just my two cents on the old age drivers!

  Pam Ehinge Nassen
Subj:  senior drivers
From: (John Fletcher)   (Class of '64)

John Fletcher wrote:

Marguerite (Groff) Tompkins sure brought up a
nonpolitical (I think) subject I can comment on.  My Mom
and my wife's Grandfather would not give up driving.  My
Mom was paying hundreds of dollars a month for
insurance, because of repeated fender benders. Becky's
granddad just drove at 30 miles an hour and didn't seem
to hit anyone.  We probably can't get all the seniors
(anyone class of 63 and before!) who no longer possess
the capacity to drive safely to give up their licenses.
I saw a 20/20 show on the problem in Florida, and it was
unbelievable.  The message I get from witnessing senior
citizens is: we baby boomers need to take inventory now
and start learning how to grow old gracefully.  What we
will lose is our independence.  Let's nurture the
relationships of those near us so that we can help them
and more importantly learn to ask for and accept help
when we need it.  I am generally passive and not a do-
gooder, but when someone asks me for help, it doesn't
occur to me to not offer assistance.  I think most of us
are like that.  If we are jerks now, we will become
worse jerks.

It's time for us to mellow and simply be kind.  Perhaps
we won't be unsafe senior drivers and will turn in our
licenses when the time comes.

John Fletcher '64
Subj:    It's About Character
From:    Rod Brewer (Class of '65)
Mail To: (Rodney C. Brewer)

To: Ron Richards

Gee, Ron, Sorry I upset you, but you are right.  This
whole sordid affair is not about policies or issues,
it's about character, and in the case of your
indefensible Bill Clinton, the lack thereof.  -Rod

Subj:   Observations and Opinions on Sandbox #5
From: (Dick Epler) (Class of '52)

After many years, I may finally be at an age where I can
offer general opinions (about things I know nothing
about) with some conviction.  Just a couple of months
ago, for the first time in my life, I even wrote a
"Letter to the Editor" of our local newspaper, and now
here I am contributing to THE SANDBOX --which seems to
be a pretty tough group.

When I was younger, I had all the answers and wondered
why my parents "didn't get it."  Later I became too busy
to form opinions, but fortunately it didn't matter.  In
the interim, TV news became dominate (the 4th branch of
Government) and provided me with more than enough
opinion.  Sadly, little of it made sense to me and I
resisted internalizing much of it.  Later, in the late
'80s, however, I discovered the Internet and was
surprised to find there are a number of independent
thinkers, all over the world, whose reasoned analysis
appealed to what I intuitively knew was correct.
Hurray!  I was not alone!

Regarding opinions expressed in THE SANDBOX, #5,
however, I'd like to offer mostly observations, along
with just a few opinions.

For Joe Large' regarding Clinton's indiscretions: While
I agree with you that most people read the Starr report
primarily for the sex part, a more careful reading would
reveal that Starr's case is *not* about sex.  It's about
perjury, lying, and abuse of power which, if decided to
be valid, should be a little easier to judge.

Unlike most people faced with irrefutable evidence,
Clinton has never to admitted to any of the allegations
against him.  Starr's report indicates that if Clinton
would just have admitted to lying under oath, he would
*not* have found it necessary to present any of the
sexual stuff.  As Starr wrote: "The details are crucial
to an informed evaluation of the testimony ... [because]
the President's defense to many of the allegations is
based on a close parsing of the definitions that were
used to describe his conduct."

What we probably need to recognize is that Clinton is an
extremely aggressive liar -- which is not to be confused
with the sort of lying most of us do to spare the
feelings of a friend.  As Bob Kerry of Nebraska (a
democrat), said in the campaign of '92: "Bill Clinton is
an unusually good liar."  Well, that's putting it
mildly.  In any case, I would think most of us are
susceptible to believing "very aggressive" liars,
especially if they are POTUS (President of the United
States).  Hence the need for the details, to show
discrepancies between Clinton's testimony and fact
(unchallenged by Clinton).

Congress doesn't need Clinton's admission to "prove"
perjury in the face of unchallenged fact.  Clinton's
perjury to avoid indictment in the Paula Jones case, is
a no-brainer, but I doubt Congress is interested,
because, as many have stated, the impeachment process is
more political than substance.

On the other hand, Starr's strategy probably made sense
to most reasoned thinkers, but obviously he neglected to
consider the powerful impact of SEX on the rest of us.
As a typical male, I have to agree -- it's very hard to
get sex off the brain.  But when I do, I wonder about
the long term consequences of selective justice, where
we penalize some but not others for identical crimes.
Worse, I worry that, when it comes to lying, and certain
other operational aspects, Clinton will become the
poster child of all aspiring politicians.

For Jim Vache regarding the Impeachment process: I
enjoyed parts of your analysis.  Since you teach
constitutional law, I'm assuming you're more interested
in truth than in a defense strategy which seeks to parse
statements for alternative word meanings, which is why I
have the following questions/observations:

1.  Regarding grounds for impeachment, rather than
trying to parse the statement "...  Treason, Bribery, or
*other* high Crimes and  Misdemeanors" for the
significance of "other," I have to say it's more
intuitively satisfying to go with the grounds provided
in the Rodino report (which cited Raoul Berger

As you no doubt know, this report analyzed some 400
years of impeachable offenses going back into our
English heritage. Rodino listed six categories as
grounds for HC&M:  a) corruption, b) abuse of official
power, c) neglect of duty, d) betrayal of trust, e)
encroachment of Parliament's [Congress'] prerogatives,
and f) misapplication of funds.  From this, It would
seem that while an impeachable act for a public official
need not be a crime, it does need to be particular kind
of conduct -- which has nothing to do with policy
differences.  Further, the Federalist Papers (Alexander
Hamilton), seems to reinforce this view. Question: Does
Gonzaga [University Law School] do much with the
Federalist Papers in constitutional law?

Incidentally, it seems many of Clinton's EOs (Executive
Orders) would fall into category e: encroachment of
Congress' prerogatives, but obviously the Republican
leadership is not interested in pursuing it.  Perhaps
they look forward to "encroaching on Congress'
prerogatives" when their turn comes.

2.  Regarding dropping the "tax evasion" charge against
Nixon, it's hard for me to believe that could not be
thought of as a suitable HC&M.  One of Berger and
Rodino's Abuse of Power examples cites the Earl of
Oxford as being charged with "... greatly diminishing
the revenues of the crown and subjecting the people of
England to greves [sic]  taxes."  Rather, I suspect
Nixon's tax evasion charge was dropped primarily
because, under our present system, it would likely
require proof of intent to defraud in a criminal court
*before* Congress could consider it for impeachment.
That would take a long time and be very hard to prove.

Incidentally, it's been reported that most serious
scholars, including Leon Jaworski, believe Nixon would
have survived impeachment in the House (not enough
evidence).  It seems Nixon resigned primarily because
the Press made his government ineffective, which is
still one of the greatest victories for the 4th branch
of Government.

3.  (Last comment).  Many of your comments confused me
in the sense that they dealt more with nonlegal issues
than with substantial legal principles.  As far as I can
tell, there's no justification in presenting any
impeachment arguments based purely on sex, morality or
even criminal law. Impeachment is *not* a criminal law
issue, it *is* a constitutional law issue and one which
I contend is reasonably well defined in spite of the
general confusion among the populace.  In addition,
criminal law procedure does *not* apply to impeachment
proceedings in the House.

As I understand the process, the House impeaches for bad
conduct, but the Senate is where the trial (penalty)
phase is held. At that point the Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court acts as a referee (as do all judges in our
legal system).  But even then, no penalty is mandated.
If one is desired, however, the only penalty available
is removal from office (no censure!) and this requires a
2/3s vote (67 out of 100 senators I believe).  I don't
believe anyone thinks this would happen to Clinton.

Bottom line: The house could justifiably impeach Clinton
just for lying under oath  -- but he *would* stay in
office.  My opinion, however, is that the House won't
impeach.  The Republican leadership is just not there.

For Ron Richards regarding Clinton's Policies vs. his
Character: Constitutional law dictates (in this country)
that policy can *never* be an issue for impeachment (as
they were in England ... where they often executed the
offender).  Only bad conduct (a byproduct of bad
character), and then only while in office, can be
considered legitimate issues for impeachment.  That's
because trust in those who hold public office is
critical to our way of life.

I doubt many Clinton insiders really trust him (the real
reason Monica kept the dress), any more than the Mafiosi
trust their don.  These people are in it for the power,
but they know the rules.  When required, they know
they're expected to take  the fall for their leader.
Most of the men have adhered to this, the capo's honor
code, but not the women.  I think only Susan McDougal
took the fall (possibly for a presidential pardon), but
then I don't believe she was sexually involved with Bill
so that's a little different.

I must say, I regret the comparison of Clinton's
operation with the Mafiosi, but it seems appropriate.
Clinton's use of his lieutenants to advance his agenda
any way possible (generally involving work that is
clearly illegal), along with his extensive intimidation
of non-FOBs (using private detectives, IRS, FBI, and
various legal procedures), along with the rewarding of
those in prison who do take the fall, is remarkably
similar to Mafiosi's operation and code of honor (the
omerta).  You might say other Presidents have done some
of these things, but clearly none have not been as
organized, nor as aggressive, nor have their excesses
been nearly as extensive.  Clinton is truly unique!

For Marguerite (Groff) Tompkins regarding licensing
elderly drivers: I agree with your views for licensing
elderly drivers, but I would expand it to include almost
everyone.  I've contended for many years that most
accidents could be prevented if all machine operators
(including auto drivers) simply strove for
professionalism -- not only on the job, but in our
private pursuits as well.  I've been told the reason we
don't is that we've come to believe the automobile is an
integral part of our "pursuit of life, liberty and
happiness."  With so many accidents, however, maybe it's
time to rethink this view.

I've known "professional" drivers in their 90's (some of
my relatives) who function quite well with NO accidents.
And I'm talking about driving cross-country as well as
in town.  Sometime I should write the story of Tacoma
Sam who was a centurion when he bought a motor home and
toured the country with his 3rd wife. I believe he was
featured on the Johnny Carson show when he was 112.  On
the other hand, I've known "causal" drivers in all
decades who've had an unusual number of "casual
accidents."  I'm convinced there are many more drivers
out there who shouldn't be licensed than just the

By professionalism, I don't mean defensive driving
(generally presented as a cookbook/rules approach).
Rather I mean someone who constantly strives to learn,
and to be better at operating their vehicle in all
environments!  This might mean giving up talking on the
car phone, and listening to loud music with earphones.

Specifically, good drivers understand the capabilities
of their vehicle, all the various environments provided
by weather and time of day, as well as their own
capabilities and physical limitations.  Every once in a
while, all this knowledge must be instantly integrated
into an appropriate action given a special situation
presented by other drivers on the road.  In the absence
of advance preparation, most people simply have
accidents ... and thus require seat belts and multiple
airbags to be "safe."

For EVA CLARK PERRY, regarding being a Republic vs. a
Democracy: Good observation, Eva.  We're supposed to be
a Republic and not a Democracy (like France).  The
confusion comes, I think, when we confuse the democratic
process used to elect our representatives with our form
of government.  That process is rather like being a
manager and hiring good people to do a defined job.  But
you don't want to micromanage your people, or you'll
wind up with chaos.  Ideally, you want your people to do
their job with a minimum of interference.  Which is to
say, it's a mistake to justify bad decisions by the use
of polling data?  The most polls can tell one is whether
your message, however wrong, is getting across.

While I would like to carry this analogy further by
saying it's best to fire your representatives if they're
not doing a good job, it doesn't often work that way in
politics.  Professional politicians are very ingenious
at finding ways to maintain power -- primarily by using
the power of the office to buy the votes that count
(maybe 35% of the total).  And this is why we need
"national term limits" -- for the rest of us.

Sorry for the long message, but I was on a roll and it
all seemed important.  Most will find it hard to agree
with much of what I write, but at least I've given the
subject extensive thought. Given my past history,
however, it'll be next August before I do this again.
But thanks for this opportunity.

-Dick Epler (52)
Subj:    Monica
From:    Sherry Dupuy
Mail To:

Responding to Joe Large' who asked: "Who in their right
mind (Monica) would hold on to a stained dress for
months and months, especially if you had been the
willing, consenting 2nd party!?"

Sherry Dupuy Responds:

Joe, On the shallow end of comments made....Monica was a
groupie as in rock groupies who save things like this
and worse from their idols....young and dumb.

Sherry Dupuy
Subj:    RE: Help sought in restoring weapons skills
From: (Chris Bolkan)  (Class of '72)

Notch the spring radius on the clothespin with a pocket
knife. This  will form a ledge for the spring to catch
when cocked. Remember to secure both clothespin halves
with a rubber band to form the barrel of  the gun.  The
gun is cocked with yet another clothes pin half.  The
stick match projectile is inserted into the barrel match
head first so  it will ignite when the gun is fired.
Hope this helps.  Have you showed them match and foil
Subj:   If he won't serve, how can he lead?
From: (Janice McCurdy)

I have to jump in here with my feelings about President
Clinton. His morals are his own business, and what he
does in bed with anyone is also his own business.  Lying
shows his character as well as his dealings in the past
as a governor.  I of course didn't vote for him when he
ran for office the first time.  I feel if he draft
dodges and won't serve his country... why should he lead
it ???

-Janice McCurdy
Subj:    More Veterans Day Thoughts
From:   Wanda (Wittebort) Shukay (Class of '53)
Reply To: (Wanda Shukay)

I've printed off all the web sites [Veteran Memorial Web
Sites listed in the Veterans Day Issue, Sandbox #6] and
hope to get time to visit them on the net.

Well, here I am in the Nations Capital and I'm not
visiting Arlington Cemetery today, but I do on and off
during the year, and the Viet Nam Memorial, etc.

My memories go back to 1942 in Pittsburgh PA, selling
poppies on the corner for  vets, collecting foil
wrappers for the war, etc. Having some of my 8 uncles
serving in WWII, my grandma having flags in her windows
with stars for each son serving.  They all came back and
lived good lives only 3 remain and only one that did
serve. The two oldest 90 this year and 89, were too old
or had disabilities and couldn't serve.

I then remember end of war - I was living in Lake
Arrowhead CA and there was quite a celebration in the

I then remember at school in Richland when Korean war
took off and a lot of our friends were either called up
or volunteered.  I remember some of them coming back to
finish school - can't remember their names.  I could go
on and on, but I have some work to do now, even tho a
holiday, brought work home.  Is that an ethic we learned
in Richland?  The "work  ethic"?

Best to you, Wanda

Subj:    More Veterans Day Thoughts
From: (Earl Bennett) (Class of '63)

Currently on my annual reserve duty, I've been too busy
to get a note in on time for the Veteran's Day issue,
but I got a little time off today, and if I don't MAKE
the time for it, shame on me.

Today I want to honor all who have sacrificed something,
anything, in service to their country.  Let me start
with my father, Earl Charles Bennett, II, who flew P38s
in the South Pacific during WWII. I never did get him to
talk much about those experiences.  He died two years
ago, and we cherish all the memories of this rock-solid,
God-fearing man who understood and imparted to us the
concepts of duty, honor, and service.  He sacrificed the
first three years of his marriage - I was the immediate
result of his return.

Dad and I never knew Earl Charles Bennett, who died in
France in WWI a few months after Dad, his first child,
was born.  We still have some postcards from him, and
the telegrams arranging shipment home for burial.
Grandma remarried and four of her additional six
children are still with us.  Uncle Alden Oyen served in
the Army, as did Uncle Newell and late Uncle Dean.

My wife's father, William Barton, served in the Army
Medical Corps in Europe during WWII.  Her stepfather,
Charles Shore, served in the Navy after the war.  I went
to the Vietnam Veteran's Memorial - THE WALL - and twice
traced the name of Mark Black, who gave his life in
service to our country.

He was three years younger than me and attended Richland
Lutheran Church, as I did.  One tracing I kept, the
other I sent back to the Church.  I had heard about the
fund that was set up in his name, and was pleased to see
the note from Patti Snider Miller about the fund
continuing.  I never thought much about the sacrifices
of military duty, especially for the families left
behind, until eight years ago.  My four years in the Air
Force, while technically making me a Vietnam era
veteran, was primarily a very rewarding time, doing
interesting work with a new language (Arabic) that I
found challenging and fascinating.  I walked the fences
of Iraklion Air Station on Crete with a .45 on my hip
(unloaded, no ammo - can you believe it?) after the
Prince and Princess of Greece were forced to abdicate
and we were not too sure how the new government would
relate to the U.S. Even then I was only vaguely aware
that my life could be on the line.

As a Navy Reserve officer I was asked in February of
1991 if I wanted to go to Saudi Arabia to work with the
document exploitation team processing captured
documents.  All of a sudden, asking my wife, Barneata,
how she felt about it, I realized this was not just
another interesting trip.  There had been a SCUD missile
shortly before that had killed and wounded a lot of Army
Reserve and National Guard soldiers a few miles from
where I would be working.  They had committed to serve,
just like me. They had no choice about going, whereas I
was asked.  Here I was, anxious to do some interesting
work, asking my wife how she felt about me going to a
war zone.  She acquiesced, but not without serious
trepidation.  I love her deeply and honor her here
before you all for her sacrifice in agreeing to my
departure - for I would not have gone if she had said
she couldn't handle it.  My time there was very
rewarding and led to other fascinating opportunities
later, while she took on sole responsibility for our
home and the issues of everyday life, with no guaranteed
termination date.  When I got back, I made her a medal
bar (Southwest Asia Service Medal and National Defense
Service Medal) to put on her desk at work in honor of
her contribution to Operation DESERT STORM.

I received the following recently in a broadcast email,
don't remember from whom.  Medals are nice, but not
everyone gets them who deserves them.  Thank you,
friends and colleagues, for your service and sacrifices.


Some veterans bear visible signs of their service: A
missing limb, a jagged scar, a certain look in the eye.
Others may carry the evidence inside them: a pin holding
a bone together, a piece of shrapnel in the leg or
perhaps another sort of inner steel: the soul's ally
forged in the refinery of adversity.  Except in parades,
however, the men and women who have kept America safe
wear no badge or emblem.  You can't tell a veteran just
by looking.  Who is a veteran?  He is the cop on the
beat who spent six months in Saudi Arabia sweating two
gallons a day making sure the armored personnel carriers
didn't run out of fuel.  She - or he - is the one who
prevented ethnic cleansing, inhumane treatment,
starvation, and gave life, hope and liberty to the
peoples of Zimbabwe, Rwanda, Bosnia and Haiti.

He is the barroom loudmouth, dumber than five wooden
planks, whose overgrown frat-boy behavior is outweighed
a hundred times in the cosmic scales by four hours of
exquisite bravery near the 38th parallel.  She is the
nurse who fought against futility and went to sleep
sobbing every night for two solid years in Da Nang.  He
is the POW who went away one person and came back
another - or didn't come back AT ALL.  He is the
Quantico drill instructor who has never seen combat -
but has saved countless lives by turning slouchy, no-
account rednecks and gang members into Marines, and
teaching them to watch each other's backs.

He is the carrier pilot landing on a rolling, pitching,
heaving flight deck during a rain squall in the pitch-
black night of the Tonkin Gulf.  He is the parade-riding
Legionnaire who pins on his ribbons and medals with a
prosthetic hand.  She is the career quartermaster (Army
Supply Corps) who watches the ribbons and medals pass
her by without complaining of the long hours, impossible
requests, or thanklessness of those she keeps warm, fed,
and supplied with the equipment needed to survive and
return to their families.

He is the Army Ranger who humps endless miles of burning
sand for three days with no sleep or food and very
little water to designate targets for laser guided bombs
or swims through a disease infested swamp and crawls
over poisonous snakes under the cover of darkness to
conduct intelligence on a foreign government hostile to
our own and our cherished way of life.

He is the three anonymous heroes in The Tomb Of The
Unknowns, whose presence at the Arlington National
Cemetery must forever preserve the memory of all the
anonymous heroes whose valor dies unrecognized with them
on the battlefield or in the ocean's sunless deep.  He
is the old man bagging groceries at the supermarket -
palsied now and aggravatingly slow - who helped liberate
a Nazi death camp and who wishes all day long that his
wife was still alive to hold him when the nightmares

They are ordinary and yet extraordinary human beings -
people who offered some of their life's most vital years
in the service of their country, and who sacrificed
their ambitions so their fellow countrymen would not
have to sacrifice their own.  They are soldiers and
saviors and swords against the darkness, and they are
nothing more than the finest, greatest testimony on
behalf of the finest, greatest nation ever known.

So remember, each time you see someone who has served
our country, just lean over and say "Thank You."  That's
all most people need, and in most cases it will mean
more than any medals they could have been awarded or
were awarded.

Two little words that mean a lot:        "THANK YOU"

feature comments from Daniel Gire, John Allen, Tom
Matthews, John Wingfield, Joseph Dan, Rob Teats, Irene
Gostnel Goodnite and others, perhaps you!  Send your
ideas, comments and replies to:  Al Parker at:  See you next time!