Sand can be scattered,
             Sand can be gathered,
                  Sand can be melted-
                       To make a mirror of ourselves.

               Welcome To:    THE SANDBOX
            Issue Number 12 ~ December 13, 1998

Col-Hi / RHS alumni or spouses Participating in The
SANDBOX today: Mike Franco, Fred G. Ranlett, Dick Epler,
Jinnie Stephens, Jenny (Loper) Buchanan, Arthur Roberts,
Jim House, Hal Burger, Hank Oviatt, Jim Blackwood, Chuck

Classes Represented: 1948, 1970, 1969, 1952, 1958, 1987,
1968, 1963, 1962, 1974, 1964, 1965.
From:      Mike Franco (70)
To:    Rob Teats, Crigler, other 70 era Bombers....

Interesting to hear some of the "Bomber social /
political issues" of the time come bubbling up,
underground papers, etc.  I am a little disappointed
that we haven't heard any "straights - bentz" history.
Remember this division we "endured" between two pretty
distinct groups of us?  And how things really never came
to true confrontation, but when we all decided to meet
head on ...we did it the right way: The Staights-Bentz
Football Game !!! I would like to hear memories of all
this.  Also, Rob Teats....the Bomber name/symbol
controversy resulted in votes, publicity, etc., during
our senior year (as I recall).  Was this the first time
these issues really surfaced?

Also, who out there remembers our "sit-ins ."  I
remember no-sit in was complete without a visit from
"the Shell Answer Man" and other great social spokesmen
of the time.  I think we put social awareness back about
5 decades!!!  I remember my idea of being socially
oppressed was that not ALL Richland kids had our own ski
boats (many of us had to double up with those more
fortunate !!!) and that my family could not afford a
pool service and (unlike others) had to vacuum our own
swimming pool !!! (tongue firmly in cheek, kinda).

Oh yea....during the great Caesar Chavez farm worker
inspired boycotts of grapes, lettuce, etc., of the late
60's - early 70's did anyone ACTUALLY forego their Zip's
Salad Burger even once !?!?!?

Very best wishes to ALL TRUE BOMBERS 
Mike Franco (70)

Subj:    Underground papers
From: (Fred G. "Grant" Ranlett - 69er)
To:  (David Sherrard)

Hello David Sherrard.  Don't you remember "The Goods"
planning sessions that both you and I were at?  I think
both our memories have gotten a little hazy after all
these years.  Sorry for not having given you credit for
your contributions.  Ann Norton, Patty Norton's mom was
a co-writer.  I remember she did a film review of "Easy
Rider."  Ray Nelson and I got the idea to publish "The
Goods" after "The Nitro Express" was met with such
opposition.  Ray and I were looking to a paper that
wasn't quite so obnoxious. Later, Grant Ranlett

Fred G. Ranlett  (

Subject: Seat Belt Perspective
From:     Dick Epler (52)

Reading the spirited opinions of Bombers on the seat
belt issue provides hope that the day is near when we’ll
be able lump this particular issue into the ever growing
class of Federally mandated practices, so that we can
gain enough perspective to make some intelligent
decisions.  The real issue of seat belts is not whether
they are good (of course they are); and it’s not whether
government should be involved in some manner either.
Rather it’s whether wearing them should require the
force of the Federal government for compliance.  The
fact that there is so much disagreement in the Sandstorm
is a clear indication that something's wrong with this

I suspect the problem revolves around the fundamental
question of what government should do.  Generally
speaking, most of us fall into one of two belief groups.
Those who are fairly self-reliant want as little
government as possible, while the other seeks the
comfort and protection of government to "level the
playing field."  It's both a security and a competitive
issue. The question many ask is: “who's going to protect
us from the bad guys, AKA "over-achiever competitive
types."  Logically, you either have to become
competitive yourself, or you have to lobby government to
weaken your competition for you.  And by competition,
I'm also referring to such things as sex, race, and

Self-reliant doer types tend to trust the process
whereby decisions are made by individuals, generally
based on self-interest, which, in the aggregate, works
to benefit the whole of society.  In which case, a
small, non-intrusive government is best.  The security-
conscious, however, tend to focus more on the needs of
society than those of the individual. Such people feel
that society-based decisions are so "right" that they
advocate dragging all others screaming and kicking into
the better world they envision.  In which case, a strong
central government is best.

The “small government is best” scenario tends to favor a
productive society.  Further, the activities of busy
people produce the self-correcting behavior of common
interest, which builds trust, so that the need for lots
of laws are minimized, and are reserved primarily for
gross behavior. Local police and courts dominate the
legal scene, and justice is both predictable and swift.
Per the Constitution, the role of the Federal government
is reserved primarily for international and interstate
matters.  A government that allows people to pursue
their own self-interest tends to produce a general
feeling of satisfaction and well being among the

The “large government is best” scenario tends to produce
bureaucracy as a necessary component to central
planning. Lots of laws and lots of police are required
to force compliance from the ever-diminishing productive
segment.  Local police and courts are reduced to agents
of the central politburo.  The frustration of
inconsistent goals tends to drive the people crazy,
which in turn leads to increased drug and alcohol abuse.

For several generations now, but particularly in the
Clinton years, the United States has been gravitating to
the large government scenario.  As a result, we are
seeing, more and more, societal problems unheard of in
past years.  Drug and substance abuse are more prevalent
than ever.  Our public schools are a disgrace.  And
there's no doubt that we continuing to drive each other
crazy big time (going “Postal,” road rage, etc.).  When
pressed, our politicians generally explain their failure
to “unanticipated” consequences, where the solution is
always more taxpayer money.  But we are a resilient lot,
and so we cope.  We like to tell ourselves we’re making
progress, but in our quiet moments, we find it difficult
to ignore the nagging suspicion that such a pervasive
government could make it all go away with the stroke of
a pen.  And so, as things continue to deteriorate, at
some point, any people will rebel and unpredictable
changes will be forced, much the same as in the USSR
today.  This is, no doubt, the main reason behind
governments desire to disarm the American people.  Of
course, that's likely to take generations as well, but
the process is alive and well … in spite of our

Maybe the government envisioned by our founding
forefathers was best after all: most issues decided
locally, with only a few specifically enumerated issues
decided on the national level. The influence of the
Federal government on local level would be specifically
restricted to minimizing impediments to self-directed
progress.  The point here is not that seat belts would
be decided on the local level; rather it’s that the
issue would never come up in such an environment.  Seat
belts would be used because they are a good idea;
airbags would not.  All products would have to stand on
their own merit in a free market.  In this environment,
the influence of the insurance industry would be
minimal, as the idea of insuring against failure is a
non sequitur (accidents are not inevitable). Assuming we
would still need productive people, late-term-abortions-
for-convenience would never even be considered.

I suspect that both the Internet and School Choice will
be the primary agents of change in this process, as both
empower people to make self-directed choices based on
what they intuitively know is right.

--Dick Epler (52)
Subj:   Seat belts - Arthur Roberts
From: (Jinnie Stephens)
To:       Arthur Roberts

Please notice I took the time to spell your name
correctly. Another pet peeve of mine, but that is for
another column. I do not disagree with a lot of what you
say.  My point, and seat belts were only one example, is
that our government was not meant to police so many
aspects of our lives.  The political folks need to stick
to running the government and not our lives.  Might even
find it would save some tax dollars if government would
stick to what it was originally set up for.  I
personally choose to wear seat belts and I have chosen
to teach my family to do the same. Notice the words
choose and chosen.  That is what freedom is -choices!
Anyone with a bit of common sense and/or intelligence
can access the pros and cons of recommendations and
maybe even come up with the same conclusions that 'they'
demand. With our busy lives it is often easier to let
someone else do the thinking and thus the deciding.  I
respect that you have 'chosen' to go along with the
dictates of government and not feel that you are having
your choices limited.  I chose to think for myself and
came up with the same conclusion basically that you did
by command. The point is that more and more we are being
told how we will live. Our choices are dwindling daily.
Yes, they may be small concessions but they are adding
up to a bigger and bigger loss in freedom of choices.

Thanks to you and to Irene Goodnight for your thoughts.
I always enjoy hearing other folks' thoughts and
opinions.  Now and than I even find myself changing my
beliefs - but not this time.  Arthur, you have certainly
researched the subject of seat belts and I am sure I
would agree with a lot of what they say.  But again my
point is not seat belts - it is the right to choose for
myself and my family!

Jinnie Stephens (58)

Subj:    mushroom cloud
From:   Jenny (Loper) Buchanan, class of 1987

To Curtis Russel, '98:
Since you graduated recently, maybe you have more
information on what is being done with the cloud.  Was
there ever any vote or opinion poll taken of the
students as to whether or not the cloud was still wanted
I've been hearing talk of the school completely getting
rid of it, but slowly, apparently, so no one will

If anyone has any ideas or more information on what is
being done, share it!  Maybe a petition could be started
to help save it.

Jenny (Loper) Buchanan, class of 1987

Re: The Symbol
Daniel Henry wrote: (68)

To Curtis B. Russell.  The only way to preserve what you
feel is important is to fight for it.  Talk to your
friends, get involved.  If you don't feel that you are
getting anywhere, call in the old farts. Coming from the
60's we're used to fightin for it.  Seriously, the whole
country will change without any mention to anyone if we
don't pay attention.  So stand up for what you believe.
I love the mushroom symbol even if some people take it
the wrong way.

Dan Henry, class of 68.

Subject:        Symbols, Choices and Changing Times
From:         Arthur Roberts
Mail To:

I think most of us think of the cloud symbol with a
sense of pride, first of all... simply because it was
our school symbol, (one of them), wherever we went.  It
was our banner, our icon. It represented us.  It went
with us to football games and basketball games, as well
as to all other sports and other competitive and
performance events.  It represented our school spirit,
our enthusiasm, our desire to be and to be seen as
competent, competitive, striving for excellence.  We
didn't always think, on the surface, of The Cloud as
representing something so horribly destructive as what
The Bomb had already proved itself to be.

When we did think of it as representing such a powerful
force though, most of us thought of it as a wonderfully
positive force, a product of our town, something that
ended a horrible war, saving in the balance, millions of
lives, allowed our surviving loved ones to come back
home and bring our families back together again.  We
thought of that as something to be very proud and
grateful for as well.  Many of us, I know, thanked God
that we were able to develop and use that bomb before
the enemy did.

Yes, it is a terrible shame that so many were killed all
at once by The Bomb.  But the perception was, the war
had to be stopped with all the destructive power we
could muster in order to save millions more who would
have died, had the war kept going on.  The bomb, that
horrible bomb, accomplished an end to that war.

Let us all be thankful at this moment in time that our
children, grand children and great grand children have
inherited the blessings of a free and independent
America and were not born and raised in some city in
Iraq, for instance, whose school icon might well be
considered to be a giant drum of Eboli, Anthrax,
Bubonic, Seran Gas, Small Pox, or some other deadly
airborne plague.  Maybe we'll be induced to use The Bomb
again, in an effort to save us from the distribution of
those plagues into our very cities and homes.

You know, part of the irony of all wars, past, present
and future is this: I really believe if we, as a nation,
were to totally place our faith and trust in God,
choosing of our own free will to walk as He prescribes,
we would never have to fight another war...  But until

See Deut. 30:19 and beyond.  It's all about choices.

-Arthur Roberts

Subj:    Answer to a Quiz
From:    Jim House (63)
Mail To:

I think I have the answer to Rod Brewer's (65) clever
quiz regarding Steve Dale.  I am vaguely familiar with
the biography of the great American hero ahead of him.
He overcame a difficult childhood to eventually excel at
a prestigious university. A student deferment allowed
him to avoid the draft during the Viet Nam war.  His
charisma and charm inspired enormous support across the
nation.  Publicly he was supportive of women's causes
(although we eventually learned his private actions
seemed to exhibit total disrespect or hate for women).
Then, after he reached the pinnacle of his vocation he
was accused of some indiscretions in the privacy of his
own house. The accusations, and his denials, were
followed by proceedings of overzealous investigators and
prosecutors who some said were so politically motivated
that they overstated their case.  We had to endure daily
summaries of the proceedings on TV and listen to pundits
debate the seriousness of his indiscretion for more than
a year.  Finally, even though many Americans seemed
outraged, a poll of randomly selected citizens concluded
(12-0) he had committed no crimes (nor impeachable
offenses).  Ultimately he made a financial settlement
that acknowledged he had been a bad husband and father
so he is now free to go about his business.

Gee, I'm confused.  Was Steve a tailback at USC or Vice

Jim House (63)

Subj:    Seatbelts
From:    Hal Burger (62)
MailTo: (Hal Burger) (62)

To all: The following was taken from the Bend (Or)
Bulletin on Monday, December 7, 1998.

"Two men die in highway wreck.  WARM SPRINGS-- Two Warm
Springs men were killed and another was injured early
this morning in an accident that sent their vehicle
rolling several times over an embankment along Highway
26 near milepost 106. Oregon State Police say Jordan J.
Pratt, 20, and his front seat passenger, Clifford
Pamerien, 19, both of Warm Springs, died at the scene.
The men were not wearing their seat belts and were
thrown from the vehicle.

"A third man, Jonas A. Miller, 19, also of Warm Springs,
was wearing his seat belt and walked away with minor
injuries. Police say Pratt was driving a 1997 Volkswagen
Jetta westbound around 1:30 a.m. when he struck a
concrete barrier causing the vehicle to roll several

"Oregon State police, Warm Springs Police Department and
the Jefferson County Sheriff's Office are investigating
the accident."

Seat belts save lives.  A statistic that has been proven
over and over again.  Maybe not everyone but enough to
warrant there use.  If an individual as a driver chooses
not to use them it is still there responsibility to
insure their passengers do. Its called responsibility.

Regards and Bomber cheers
Hal Burger (62)
Subj:     Christy Lynn Hubbard Oviatt (74)
From:     Hank Oviatt
MailTo: (Hank and Christy Oviatt)

OK folks.

I get all these messages on my computer but haven't
heard a thing about my dear wife.  Does anyone have any
good stories on Christy Hubbard (Her dad, Vic Hubbard
was a chem teacher)? Some good dirt that I can use in
time of need would be interesting.

Carolyn Burnam (Polentz), I know you've got some.  Lets
hear 'em!!

-Hank Oviatt (Bomber Spousal contribution)

[Better buy your wife some flowers, Hank! -ap]

Subj:   Straight Into The Fog
From:   Jim Blackwood (64)

Riding up Swift (actually -- not the metaphor mentioned
by R. Stein) one A.M., late 50's, Gramps at the wheel:

Gramps: Damn fog, can't see where we're goin.
Me: Pretty bad.

The fog is thicker, the cars that pass going the other
way are not clear.

Gramps: Haven't seen it like this much.
Me: Getting worse.  Can't see anything outside the cab,
not even shadows.
Gramps: Hell, we'd better pull over, can't see the
damned road.
Me: Can't get much worse than this.
Gramps: Roll down that side window, tell me where the
curb is.

Rolling down the window I notice it's not foggy out the
side, just the front.  Out the side it's cold and clear.
Startles me, so I don't roll it down all the way.
Gramps is still pulling over, says:
How are we?  I reach over, turn on the wipers and
defrost and the fog lifts out front, too.

Nowadays driving up Swift (this time the metaphor), I
notice that older drivers are usually only dangerous
because they're living at a different pace and seeing
things differently.  Cute little ole guy this evening
pulling out, like in a tank, real slow, just crossing
the lanes, looking straight ahead, going 20 when
traffic's doin 45, everyone stopping quickly to avoid
him -- a little like braking for a rabbit or cat, or
something that nobody wants to see hurt.

Anyway the point is, where's all the misfits, lunatics
and nitwits from band class?  Drop me an email.

Subject: Belts and Freedom
From:    Chuck Monasmisth (65)

I've been reading with very little interest the
discourses on personal freedoms and seat belts.  Now
there is an oxymoron!  How many of the personal freedom
fighters did I just loose?

Personal freedoms are an issue that is reflected in a
much larger topic than seat belts.

Seat belts are a method of personal survival.  The two
are not related.

I am a passionate patriot.  I will risk my life for my
freedom, but I will do it fighting for my freedom, not
by ignoring my personal survival.  Come on now get a
grip on reality.

I race sports cars because it's fun and a good way to
keep from having any money in the bank.  We drivers
espouse several witticisms.  Wear a helmet that reflects
how much you value your head.  My helmet is a carbon
fiber/kevlar composite. Very expensive.

Next saying: Do away with air bags and lap belts, all
vehicle occupants should wear a five point harness.

They work better than air bags.  I can personally
testify to that! Turn six at Portland, OR  and turn one
at Mission BC. (Both concrete walls at 100mph+)

I will support almost any political action that will
decrease government involvement and increase my personal
responsibility for my own well being.  (Didn't you ever
really listen to Mr. Blankenship!)  But, I'll not ignore
a life saving device to do it! Come on now all of you
personal freedom activists, put your energies in a more
sane issue.  You'll then have my support!

  Chuck Monasmith
    ~~~ CMM ~~~
That's it for this issue of The Sandbox, folks Share
your opinions, your feelings, your ideas with all of us!