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 Monasmith. Classes Represented: 1948, 1970, 1969, 1952, 1958, 1987, 1968, 1963, 1962, 1974, 1964, 1965. ===================================== From: Mike Franco (70) ReplyTo: Bmbr70@aol.com 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: bf857@scn.org (Fred G. "Grant" Ranlett - 69er) To: Desherrard@aol.com (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 (bf857@scn.org) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Subject: Seat Belt Perspective From: Dick Epler (52) ReplyTo: depler@pdx.oneworld.com 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 picture. 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 religion. 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 governed. 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 Constitution. 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) epler@pdx.oneworld.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Subj: Seat belts - Arthur Roberts From: jinnie@owt.com (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 MailTo: leglesseye@earthlink.net 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 notice. 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. PROUD OF THE CLOUD!!!! Jenny (Loper) Buchanan, class of 1987 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Re: The Symbol From: djh@digisys.net 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: Fluffdry@hotmail.com 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 then..... See Deut. 30:19 and beyond. It's all about choices. -Arthur Roberts ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Subj: Answer to a Quiz From: Jim House (63) Mail To: JCHOUSE32@aol.com 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 President? Jim House (63) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Subj: Seatbelts From: Hal Burger (62) MailTo: hburger@bendnet.com (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 times. "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: hoviatt@gateway.net (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) MailTo: blackwoj@u.arizona.edu 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. blackwoj@u.arizona.edu ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Subject: Belts and Freedom From: Chuck Monasmisth (65) MailTo: msmith@owt.com 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! -12-